Australians today have the privilege of living through the collapse of an empire. 2025 marks the 76th anniversary of the 1949 founding of Robert Menzies’ Liberal Party. 2025 is also the year the Liberal Party was relegated to a parliamentary rump, incapable of winning another election. Interestingly, both events were celebrated with thunderous applause by Australian patriots.

What is most infuriating is that Peter Dutton squandered a perfect opportunity to reform Australian politics forever. As Australia’s White demographic hurtles toward minority status, it becomes increasingly difficult to elect a national leader who represents our unique interests as a people. In research conducted by The National Observer’s Flynn Holman, White Australians could shrink to a minority in our country by as early as the year 2034. Only three Federal elections stand between now and then.

Peter Dutton is not a right-winger, or at least is not one anymore. Earlier in his career, he may have protested the treatment of White South Africans, walked out of the Stolen Generations apology and brought attention to the African gangs epidemic, but that was a long, long time ago…

Read the rest of this article on the British Australian Community website via the following link:

READ THE FULL ARTICLE!

Written by editor of The National Observer and host of the Backbench Drivers podcast, John Lawson.

Electoral nationalism has languished in Australia since the post-war liberal consensus arrived on our shores. On the one hand, genuine and intelligent advocates for the Australia first cause such as Graeme Campbell (founder of the Australia First party) & Denis McCormack (Founder of the Australians Against Further Immigration party) among many others were suffocated by obscurity, meanwhile, the most boorish representatives of our worldview were elevated through intense media coverage — Pauline Hanson being the prime example.

Senator Gerard Rennick seemed tragically fated to slot neatly into the first category. Since the founding of his People First party, he has received next to no mainstream media attention which struck me as strange considering just how radical his ideological positions are:
Slashing Australia’s immigration rate, ending our poisonous relationship with India, calling out Israeli false flags, naming the central bankers. On top of that he’s a covid-sceptic, protectionist, and pro-Trump — this guy is running for the Senate this year!

Subscribe now

Everything we know about the ordinarily squealing, finger-wagging, Australian mainstream media is being upended by the utter gulf of coverage on Rennick’s campaign. There can be only one explanation for the deathly silence; Gerard Rennick, much like the Hon. Graeme Campbell & Denis McCormack before him is an example of what I will describe as ‘Elite Human Capital Nationalism’.
Rennick is an accountant, and approaches problem-solving as one. He is measured, systematic and professional. Rennick imbibes the spirit of a previous generation of Anglo-Celt Australian men who could design bridges by hand and to whom a handshake is sacred. The problem is that spirit, like most elements of authentic Australian culture, is no longer valued in 21st century electoral politics.

This is why each election reliably returns one of two dominant major parties and only a minuscule number of alternative minor party candidates will ever sit in parliament. The brand recognition of the major parties, though waning, still overpowers almost every other factor weighing on voters minds. This all should not be taken to mean that no alternative to the major parties can succeed however, as evidenced by the Greens who rose in only 30 years from an unknown entity to an established fixture of the Australian political landscape.

Despite both the minor party left and minor party right capturing a collective ~15% of the vote each in the 2022 election, the Greens were able to elect 12 senators, while the minor party right only got 3 (Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts and Ralph Babet) who were later joined by Gerrard Rennick after his defection from the LNP for a grand total of 4. Pitiful.

Subscribe now

The difference comes down to the left’s consolidated vote and although it would be nice if voters to the right of the Liberals were presented with a single well-managed and professional party to represent their interests, immovable personalities and egos appear to have doomed as to a near-term future of competing minor-right fiefdoms and so an alternative solution must be sought if there is to be any hope of taking meaningful ground for the right.

The Australia First Alliance could be just that alternative solution.

Simply put, the aim of the AFA is to more effectively capture the minor-right vote with preference flows and mitigate conflict between parties where possible. Practically speaking this means that in Queensland and Victoria a preference swap between Libertarians and People First has been brokered… pretty unremarkable stuff but lays the groundwork for more productive collaboration in future.

In NSW a more interesting arrangement has been struck between the Libertarians, People First and HEART where on the ballot the three parties comprising the alliance will appear as one consolidated box for voters to number (Unfortunately this box likely won’t be listed as the ‘Australia First Alliance’, an objectively great name, but as a sequence of the party’s names for maximum brand recognition: Libertarians/People First/Heart).

Subscribe now

Ideological Credentials

“But…” I hear you object, “I thought this was a nationalist publication! Why is the National Observer promoting libertarianism and conspiritard anti-vaxxers?”

To this I can only respond: all your concerns are likely correct. The Australia First Alliance will unfortunately not be advocating for the end of multiculturalism, mass remigration, or the ousting of our country’s hostile elite anytime soon. The policy platform leaves a lot to be desired, but this doesn’t dampen my enthusiasm for the project and neither should it yours.

In Germany, the ‘Alternative for Duetslachand’ (AfD) Party was founded in 2013 by a group of former members of Germany’s centre-right party (CDU) primarily on the platform of promoting free-market ideals. Today it is run by Alice Weidel, a lesbian married to a Sri-Lankan. Certainly a strange profile for one of Europe’s most infamous ‘far-right’ parties.

Despite its imperfect origins and leadership, the AfD has become a symbol of the hard-right’s modern ascendance in Europe and has built a youth movement of genuine nationalists while capturing the votes of Germany’s youngest generations.

In Poland, the ‘Konfederacja’ Party came about in 2018 as a result of a merger between Poland’s nationalist & libertarian party to go on to achieve success at elections. Several additional parties have joined the confederation at one time or other and subsequently exited while the Party itself continues on from strength to strength.

In New Zealand, the ‘New Zealand First’ Party (NZF) is currently in government thanks to a coalition struck with the major centre-right ‘National’ Party and the libertarian ‘ACT’ Party. NZF has pushed for immigration restriction and making English the official language of NZ.

Subscribe now

The three examples listed above are each advancing nationalist politics in their respective countries, but none has been able to do so without some degree of compromise in the methods they have used to attain power and cultural sway. Simply put, this is politics: the art of the possible. Those who turn their nose up at operators within the above-mentioned nationalist parties for engaging in the messy process of realpolitik should probably find another field of work.

By the same standard, those who critique the Australia First Alliance for including the insufficiently right-wing Libertarian Party or Rennick’s People First Party for insufficiently articulating the ethnic basis of nationalism are missing the big-picture opportunity being presented here.

The two main reasons Australian Nationalists MUST support Rennick’s People First Party & the Australia First Alliance are these: these projects create a credible further-right alternative to the Liberal Party that could in theory grow to eclipse it (a statement that could never be made of One Nation or UAP) and secondly this further-right alternative will be more open to genuinely nationalist membership and leadership than any of the previously political options.

On the first point my case is simple, nationalist politics will never win government in a democratic system without winning the hearts and minds of the middle and elite classes, both of whom are fiercely allergic to the BoganNat conspiritardism which defined both the UAP and ON brands. Rennick is a serious person and so far his People First branding has been professional, far more akin to the Liberals than One Nation in presentation despite possessing orders of magnitude fewer resources. The same is true of the Libertarians, especially under the Hon. John Ruddick’s leadership in NSW.

To the second point, every sign points towards the Australia First Alliance placing far fewer ideological constraints on its members and leaders when compared to both One Nation and the Liberals. Both Ruddick and Rennick have been harsh critics of the Liberal Party’s top-down candidate preselection process. Further, Ruddick has suggested a fascinating method of adjudicating candidate preferences for future senate tickets which he is labelling the ‘Grand Primary’. All members of all minor parties comprising the AFA will be invited to vote in person at town halls around the nation for the candidates they believe will be best. This will in effect be the ‘marketplace of ideas’ in real life and mean that the minor party with the largest and most active membership will have the greatest say. Because I believe that Australian nationalism is the most compelling idea swirling around within the right-wing, I believe that Rennick’s PF Party membership will grow in time to dominate said ‘Grand Primaries’. Should One Nation join in, its membership would likely vote far further to the right than the party’s current leadership would reflect. Altogether, this would mean that even if the People First Party was only one member in the alliance with a constellation of other right-wing parties with diverging interests, Rennick would effectively steer the ship.

Subscribe now

Conclusion

Throughout this article I have been mostly optimistic about the emergence of Rennick’s People First Party & the Australia First Alliance, but let’s not be fooled. At present, these projects are currently nothing but unfulfilled opportunities. Rennick’s margin to win back his Senate seat is razor thin and though he has committed to building the People First Party regardless of the 2025 election result, the job of winning power again will be immensely more difficult should he lose the prestige of being a parliamentarian.

This is why I am calling on all nationalists not currently a member of another political party to sign up for Gerard Rennick’s People First Party and immediately enquire about how you can help with campaigning. This is most crucial for Queenslanders who will be able to directly contribute to Rennick’s re-election, but is beneficial regardless of state.

Though imperfect, Senator Gerard Rennick and his People First Party are 90% of the way towards the political platform we as ideological nationalists would like to see implemented, if you are able to contribute to his victory you have a duty to pitch in. Australia First is not inevitable unless nationalists work to make it so.

Written by editor of The National Observer and host of the Backbench Drivers podcast, John Lawson.

Both of Australia’s major parties have suffered serious blows to their credibility in recent years. In August 2023 the Albanese Labor government announced its intention to propose a referendum, which if passed, would see an Aboriginal advisory body enshrined within the Australian constitution. Throughout the length of Albanese’s ‘Voice to Parliament’ campaign, despite celebrity endorsements and a huge ad spend polling showed the gap between opposition to and support for ‘The Voice’ widening slowly into a chasm. Opposition to ‘The Voice’ unexpectedly united Australia’s terminally divided right wing and saw hundreds of thousands take to social media to vocalise their opposition to Albanese’s proposition.
In the days leading up to the decisive defeat of the ‘Voice to Parliament’ on the 14th of October 2023, PM Albanese made clear the reasons why he believed the campaign appeared to be failing: Misinformation and Disinformation. These are two words that at this point were intimately familiar to Australians owing to their heavy use beginning only a few short years earlier…

The COVID-19 Pandemic represented a highly contentious period in Australian politics which gave rise to populist movements whose driving impetus was to oppose, whether rightly or wrongly is beyond the scope of this article, the government’s various attempts to end the pandemic. It is broadly recognised that given large amounts of free time while cooped up indoors and jobless, a vast swathe of the public searched beyond mainstream media and discovered the world of ‘conspiracy theories’ and the ‘far-right’. This had the expected immediate effect of catalysing mass anti-COVID-Regime street protests and the less visible long-term effect of contributing to the drift away from major party support and the growth of independent candidates and minor parties. Throughout the Liberal Party’s attempt to end COVID, the Party was constantly hounded by the media and opposition alike regarding concerns that members of the Coalition were spreading misinformation & Albanese has since used the anti-COVID-Regime movement as an example of purveyors of misinformation he wishes to target with the new legislation.

Now with COVID and The Voice campaign in the rearview mirror, the government’s fixation on identifying and eliminating information deemed intentionally malicious or accidentally harmful has only ramped up. Beginning in 2024 a massive ad campaign was launched alongside an in-school course in an attempt to ward young boys away from the supposedly harmful influence of online influencers promoting ‘toxic masculinity’. Just as the initial popularity of Tate-style influencers began to flatten out, the Labor government has been confronted with a new ideological threat, this time emerging from the left: the pro-Palestine movement. Since the 7th of October attack the popularity and relevance of the pro-Palestine/anti-Israel movement has drastically increased - even leading to the defection of one Labor MP who has since broken away to form a new political force intent on consolidating Australia’s Muslim vote. Albanese, once a founding member of the ‘Parliamentary Friends of Palestine’ and anti-Israel protestor in his youth has been confronted with the hard blue-and-white reality of holding political leadership in a Western nation. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, most of his Party’s rank-and-file members (and especially those born since the year 2000) fiercely oppose Israel. The popularity of the pro-Palestine cause within the Labor Party is largely a product of the immense popularity of the pro-Palestine movement on social media. Albanese’s response to this conundrum should be predictable at this point: he levelled the accusation of ‘misinformation’ at the pro-Palestine movement.

Subscribe now

Laws being proposed

The Labor Government’s response to growing distrust in the status quo has been to, with the varied support and opposition of the Coalition, introduce four separate pieces of legislation:

1. The Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill

Aims to award the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) the ability to fine social media companies of up to 5% of their global revenue should they refuse to adopt editorial standards that would see content the ACMA defined as misinformation or disinformation removed.

2. The Under 16s Social Media Ban

Purportedly intended to curb the negative effects of social media on young Australians, Albanese listed protecting kids from concerns about ‘body image’ and ‘misogyny’ as his primary motivations. Much like the above Misinfo/Disinfo Bill, powers will be awarded to the E-Safety commissioner to oversee social media companies’ enforcement of age limits. Although we are yet to see concrete details on how the ban will be enforced, UK-style ‘biometric scans’ cross-referenced with a government database appears to be a leading contender.

3. An anti-doxxing amendment

After the names and chat logs of 600 Jewish writers and artists in a Whatsapp group chat dedicated to lobbying for Israeli interests in Australia was published by pro-Palestine activists earlier this year, Jewish Atorney-General Mark Dreyfus, spurred on by groups such as the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, has put forward an amendment which will heavily penalise similar attempts at doxxing in the future. Considering doxxing has been a common means of attacking right-wing Australians for years without recourse, it is hard to see this as anything other than a blatant attempt to shut down journalistic inquiry into certain topics.

4. An expansion of anti-hatespeech legislation

Another piece of legislation introduced by Mark Dreyfus in reaction to the domestic effects of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Ostensibly meant to place harsher penalties for calls to violence, especially those targeted against minority groups, the initial media release also states the new laws will strengthen the ban on symbols “likely to offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate a member of a group distinguished by certain attributes” (such as the ‘nazi salute’ and various other nazi symbols banned earlier this year). According to Sky News “The proposed laws have reportedly targeted derogatory remarks based on gender, sexuality, race, disability and religion”.

Subscribe now

All of the above serve to curb the freedom of Australians to freely disseminate and access information online. Though elements of any of these bills may be positive in theory, they each must be viewed in the context of a broad-spectrum attack on the right of Australians to free speech led by a government that has demonstrated an acute interest in targetting specific political opponents from both the left and right.

How will the various Bills limit Freedom of Speech?

A clear pattern emerges in the types of information and speech the Albanese government has targeted for removal: So-called ‘Mysoginy’, ‘racism’ & ‘Anti-Semetism’; a clear reaction to the skyrocketing popularity of various pro-masculinity influencers, the growing scepticism towards the multicultural/racial consensus and the widespread opposition to Israeli war crimes and influence. The sudden mainstreaming of these long-taboo topics can largely be attributed to the success of TikTok, the sudden relaxing of X’s censorship policies and the success of free-speech video alternatives such as Rumble. We know that one factor in the US TikTok ban was the unfettered proliferation of pro-Palestine content on the app, I do not believe it unreasonable that similar motivations inform the current campaign to ban and censor social media in Australia.

Notably exempt from the consequences Misinformation and Disinformation Bill were major news companies. If the law were to pass, it would immediately have the effect of dragging Australia back to a pre-internet era of centralised information delivery in which meaningfully dissenting opinions never approached power or mainstream acceptability.

This appears to be the exact intended effect: to prevent the destabilising effects of dissent. Under the definitions of ‘serious harm’ laid out in section 14 of the proposed Misinfo/Disinfo legislation are of course restrictive speech codes many Westerners have grown all too familiar with “vilification of a group in Australian society distinguished by race, religion, sex, sexual orientation etc etc” but also the strange addition of “harm to public confidence in the banking system or financial markets”. Obviously, there are many legitimate questions to be asked on the topics of Australia’s banking system, race or religion, but the answers to these questions have wide-reaching societal consequences that in no way benefit the decrepit class of politicians currently in power.

The Explanatory Memorandum provided to accompany the Bill explicitly states that by limiting ‘misinformation and disinformation’ it hopes to prevent the rise of a potential new force in Australian politics, the example of just such a force given is the ‘Alternative for Deutschland’ whose meteoric rise in Germany has been driven by an enthusiastic Gen Z, many of whom discovered the party and nationalist politics through social media. A similar example of the success of populists in Italy is also listed.

It is clear to see how the provision within the hate speech legislation which attempts to further the ban on prohibited symbols will be used to crack down on free political expression as the current ban has already been used to arrest and investigate right-wing political activists several times just this year. Meanwhile, the doxxing laws appear to mainly affect journalists and their right to report information that may be in the national interest, such as the chatlogs that inspired its introduction in the first place.

How the under-16s social media ban will limit free speech is less immediately obvious, but no less distressing. Although the prospect of protecting kids from the myriad dangers of the internet may seem tempting on the surface, the deeper implications - particularly to do with implementation should dissuade any reasonable person from supporting the bill. First, the creation of a central database with the private information of every Australian social media user stored will make for a soft target for politically or maliciously motivated hackers. Considering the scale of target activist hackers have recently targeted, archive.org for example, this is a serious concern.

Second, and more worrying, is the fact that the bar to exposing someone’s identity through lawsuits will be significantly lowered in regards to both price and time.

A perfect point of comparison is Rebel News presenter Avi Yemini’s 2022 attempt to legally reveal the identity of previously anonymous left-wing Twitter user @PRGuy17. Yemini first had to take out a court order against Twitter to reveal the IP address and carrier service of the account owner which turned out to be Telstra. Yemini then had to take out a second court order against Telstra to reveal the name of the account owner, but before this order could be approved the user voluntarily revealed his real identity.

Yemini’s was a costly and time-intensive ordeal. Should the Australian government force social media companies to require an individual’s private details upfront while creating an account, or creates a central database containing the same information, it stands to reason using the legal system to dox anonymous social media users will become a much easier task and thus have the effect of dampening the dissemination of dissenting opinions.

The attempt to censor Australians from discussing legitimate and necessary topics, and strangle potential political threats in the crib, is the stated intention of the Albanese government’s proposed censorship regime. Any potential good that might be delivered by theoretically protecting kids under the age of 16 from the internet, or preventing the malicious dissemination of private information is overshadowed by the stated bad intentions of those in charge of administering the policies and for that reason must be wholesale opposed.

Subscribe now

Prospects

That Labor would be able to push the Misinformation bill through the Lower House using their majority was never in doubt, now that the bill has reached the Upper House its fate will be decided by the four independents on the crossbench. Fortunately thus far commitments from independents Fatima Payman, David Pockock and Lidia Thorpe appear to indicate the bill will be rejected. This is greatly reasuring considering the consequences of implementing the Misinfo/Disinfo Bill would be the most restrictive of all the above-listed pieces of legislation were it to go into effect.

Less optimistic are the chances of a rejection of the Under 16s ban bill, owing to the fact it is currently receiving bipartisan support from both major parties with leader of the Liberal Party Peter Dutton indicating his desire to urgently rush the legislation through parliament before the new year. We are yet to hear the Coalition’s position on the doxxing and hatespeech legislation, though in light of Dutton’s strident support of Israeli interests in Australia, it would be a safe bet to predict he reverses his initial criticisms of the bill’s anti-free speech implications and pledges support.

Hope

There have been signs the recent Trump regime will impose pro-free speech conditions on military allies, with Vice President JD Vance stating in an interview that NATO allies who do not support American values such as free speech should no longer receive military assistance, it would be reasonable to assume similar pressures might be applied to the members of the AUKUS alliance. Elon Musk who has grown to become one of Trump’s biggest supporters over the course of the 2024 election campaign and victory has a vested interest in protecting X’s free speech status from prying governments around the world. Musk recently replied to an account on X posting about the draconian legislation that has been proposed to signal his disapproval:

By publicising the bills on the global stage, and especially by continuing to bring them to the attention of Elon, it is possible that the Trump admin can lean on an Australian government fearful of falling from the good graces of the US and protect the right of Australians to speak freely.

Written by John Lawson, find more of his content on 𝕏 @JohnLawson_TNO

I recently read an article written by Tim Matheson for Noticer.news describing the complete incompatibility of nationalist politics and Australia’s Libertarian Party. In nearly any context on earth Tim’s article would be uncontroversial, after all, libertarian political theory has it’s roots in wildly different first principles than nationalism and as you would expect leads to radically different outcomes.

I would agree in almost any context on earth, the sole exception being Australia. I do not contest Tim’s argument that libertarianism as an ideology has few safeguards against the mass multicultural immigration that is destroying Australia, and I am virulently opposed to Ruddick’s suggested local government policy of approving every development request that comes across his desk. Nonetheless, Australia possesses a unique set of circumstances that makes the deployment of ‘tactical libertarianism’ politically expedient and could even offer potential opportunities.

Those factors are:

1. The splintered Right-wing vote

2. The Libertarian’s nationalist policies

3. The Libertarian Party’s candidates and leadership

   Subscribe now

1. Uniting the Right

Australia’s fractured right-wing minor party ecosystem has long been a source of frustration for those with right-wing critiques of the establishment Coalition. One Nation and Pauline Hanson, who at their entry into politics in 1997 offered a genuine nationalist alternative to the mainstream conservative parties, has long since made itself redundant. Despite this, many still believe One Nation to be a preferable or viable vehicle for nationalist politics - a delusion that can easily be dispelled by a brief examination of the party’s track record.

One Nation’s candidates barely mention the founding impetus for the party nowadays, that being opposition to mass multicultural immigration. The party has been unable to retain any of its talent; Craig Kelly is the most recent example but I would argue Mark Latham’s departure from the party was the single greatest loss the party has suffered in a long time. Hanson rules the party with total top-down discretion and any member or candidate who appears to outshine herself or James Ashby promptly receives the sack, a fate they are helpless to resist owing to the total lack of members-rights within the One Nation party structure. It is common knowledge that the greatest impediment to the rise of genuinely nationalist parties in Western countries is the existence of a strong mainstream conservative party - of which, with the inclusion of One Nation, Australia has three. The combination of all these factors means to me that any force that can knock One Nation off its perch (potentially opening the field for a better option) should be embraced by ideological nationalists.

The Libertarian Party, under the leadership of John Ruddick, have demonstrated a clear interest in working with the other minor parties in order to consolidate the independent right-wing vote or failing this, working against them. An effective right-wing party exerting the same influence over the Coalition the Greens have over Labor would be extremely beneficial, especially in light of some of the policy positions the Libertarians appear to be representing.

Subscribe now

2. Nationalist Policy Positions

Within Tim’s article is included the concession that the Libertarians are the most effective barrier to the wildly damaging and censorious Misinformation bill being forwarded by the Albanese government. I do not believe enough weight is placed on this fact.

Without the ability to communicate freely, all meaningful dissent against the government is dead in the water and any attempt to organise alternative political options becomes borderline impossible in the age of the internet. The Libertarian Party is one of the few bastions of opposition to this disastrous policy and should be commended for the fact.

On the other hand, I have to strongly disagree with Tim’s assessment that the Libertarians will be defacto supporters of mass immigration and ‘big Australia.’ Although we are still awaiting the official publication of the Libertarian Party’s immigration policy I have seen enough positive signals to outweigh my fear of Ruddick building Megacity One on top of a national park.

Under the leadership of John Ruddick, the Libertarian Party appears to be adopting what some might describe as a ‘National Libertarian’ position, Ruddick himself calling for a 5-year moratorium on all immigration.

All of these signals regarding immigration have been further boosted during my private and public discussions with members and leaders within the Libertarian Party all of whom have agreed that the party’s policy will be more restrictionist than the Coalition’s.

Another recent example of a position both nationalists and libertarians can unite in support of is the right to freedom of association, a position on which Ruddick has spoken in support of in the strongest possible terms - going so far as to support the overturning of civil rights legislation that has for generations forced undesired assimilation on the populace and consequently facilitated the breakdown of White communities across the Western world.

We must also remember the Libertarian Party stood opposed to the Voice to Parliament, which though in retrospect appears to have been a safe position, was not so at the outset of Albanese’s all-out campaign.

This is no claim or guarantee that Nationalists will always align with the Party’s policies, but insofar as they are pushing in the same direction as us, we must not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Subscribe now

3. Candidates and leadership

I commented a few months ago that my position on Libertarians vs One Nation is that I will take autists over bogans any day of the week, I don’t believe this comment is entirely fair. The Libertarians, contrary to their stereotype, have done an effective job of attracting high-quality, practical-minded members & candidates.

Ruddick is clearly an extremely pragmatic political operator and is has worked hard to expand the Libertarian vote, this has led him to court the vote of the broader non-mainstream right meaning and in the process shedding many of the ideological failures of libertarianism. I know that among its membership the Party counts avowed non-libertarian Rob McMullan, who has joined up because the Libertarians are more competent and afford far more members rights than any of the other right-wing minor parties.

This is also true of candidates, some of whom have made comments that would see them excommunicated from the Liberal Party until the end of time. Burchell Wilson, former ACCI Chief Economist, who has made many politically incorrect remarks about various protected minorities and openly remarked on the relation between crime and ethnicity on his X account (before it was deleted), was supported in his run as a candidate for the Libertarians and continues to play an active role within the Party today.

Lachlan Lade is another nationalist, anti-immigration candidate running for Senate on the QLD Libertarian ticket who regularly attends events hosted in conjunction with the British Australian Community and Australian Natives Association - both of which unapologetically stand to represent White Australians.

Then of course there is John Ruddick himself who defected to the Libertarian Party from a leadership role within the Liberal Party right-faction, and has only grown more right-wing since. Under his leadership, the Libertarians have openly stated that he is willing to work with even some of the most controversial elements of the Australian right-wing, an offer we would be remiss of us to refuse.

Ruddick’s relationship with Dr David Adler is concerning, but the Liberal Party has Mark Leibler and Pauline Hanson is known to sport an Israel-flag scarf from time to time. Australia-first nationalists aren’t exactly spoiled for choice.

Conclusion

Insofar as the Libertarian Party is pulling the Liberal Party to the right while coaxing their voters away, building order out of the chaos that is the right-wing minor party ecosystem, running nationalist candidates and holding a hardline position in favour of immigration restriction I will lend them my conditional support and encourage any nationalist uninterested in practising entryism within the Liberal Party to join the Libertarian Party. Should any one of these factors change, however, it would no longer consider the party a viable vehicle for our politics. Put simply: I support tactical libertarianism.

“The cowards never started and the weak died along the way.”

That quote is an oft-repeated mantra of Phil Knight, founder and chairman of Nike.
It expresses an attitude found only sparingly in a Western world that has grown utterly safe, like a padded cell.

Gone is adventure. Young men, who in generations past, would have ventured from the family home to seek adventure on the sea, glory on the battlefield, or treasure in the New World, feel trapped in their safe soul-sucking job while the cost-of-living noose tightens around their throat.

Thankfully, unmapped frontiers, victory, and wealth have not entirely disappeared, they have only been pushed beyond the reach of most men and into the heady realm of coding, product testing, resource allocation and creation. I am of course describing the turbulent world of entrepreneurial startups - a place where mankind’s ingenuity continues to be pushed to its limits with world-changing innovation as the aim.

Successful entrepreneurs are the men who move history in the 21st century, leaving conventional political operators lurching in their wake. Marc Rudolph revolutionised entertainment, Jeff Bezos revolutionised commerce, Steve Jobs revolutionised computing, Mark Zuckerberg revolutionised communication and Elon Musk revolutionised energy, cars, commercial transactions, and space travel.
Can a single modern bureaucrat’s achievements compare?

While the bold, the capable and the innovative have flocked to Silicon Valley and other hubs of adventurous innovation, Canberra, Washington and London have been emptied of their Menzies, Buchanans and Powells, leaving behind only power-hungry, unproductive leeches. We are witnessing the effects of this talent deficit today in countries across the West.

Subscribe now

The Solution

Thankfully, the solution is clear. We require a new conception of politics and a new class of political operators, one cut from the same problem-solving cloth as entrepreneurs. We need the modern adventurous who possess the entrepreneurial instinct to be directed towards the national cause, and not solely their own personal gain.

This concept is not without precedent. Only a few years ago leftists were firing out one hit piece after another decrying the overrepresentation of highly-educated STEM students and professionals within the far-right.

Ron Unz is a perfect living example of this convergence; the multi-millionaire tech entrepreneur runs an online publication where he publishes his controversial articles, many of which pertain to nationalist concepts. Of course, it would be remiss of me not to mention William B. Shockley, Nobel Prize recipient for his contribution to the invention of the semiconductor, described by many as the ‘father of Silicon Valley’, who was an explicit White identitarian. Of course, tech is not the only field in which nationalists have excelled and many principles involved in pioneering new technologies translate across most upstart organisations and concepts.

It should come as no surprise that nationalism attracts the best and brightest. Despite the media smears depicting the ‘far-right’ as low-class thugs, the majority of ideological nationalists today are young, high-achievers interested in taboo truths and effective solutions.

This brings me to the main point of the article. We need to engineer a political solution to our civilisation’s plummet into a flaming crater.

When inventing a reusable rocket, Elon Musk spent billions of dollars and watched countless failures crash to earth. Each time he would push his rocket engineers to examine the failure and find where the fault in the rocket’s design lay, questioning everything except the laws of physics. After this, a frenetic rush to implement changes and rebuild what was destroyed followed, with engineers encouraged to take spectacular calculated risks. Several repetitions of this cycle ensued until Musk succeeded in his mission and changed space travel forever. We must hold the same ruthless determination to save our nations and in order to do so we will need to replicate Musk’s dedication to pragmatic, iterative problem-solving.

In order to solve any of the West’s problems, first we must find an effective method of placing individuals who comprehend the problems in their fullness into positions of power capable of solving said problems. Politics is the art of wielding power, and so a nationalist political ‘start-up’ needs to solve several core problems barring nationalists from gaining power.

Subscribe now

The Diagnosis

To my eye there are two core problems that require solving; how can nationalists effectively attack our enemies in the political arena? and how can we fend off their attacks? While commercial motivations have driven rapid advancement in terms of technology and science, in the realm of politics superstition and convention reign supreme. Like in any startup, it will take guts to risk implementing new ideas - risks the establishment likely won’t take - which leaves the field wide open to younger, hungrier entities to sweep in and claim the prize. The following are my suggestions for potentially profitable, scalable and absolutely essential companies.

Politically attacking

The object of our political battle is to replace the corrupt, traitorous class of elites currently in power across all institutions with nationalists loyal to their God and nation, and so a company dedicated to this very task is essential. A variety of tactics can be employed to achieve this task, and it would be possible to build a company that incorporates them all.

First, the easiest improvement to be made is the importation of successful electoral and rhetorical strategies from overseas. Australia for example still appears to be stuck in the past in terms of political communication. ‘Stunts’ are still popular, examples include Katter’s pig costume to raise awareness about supermarket price rorting or Hanson’s burqa in parliament. I believe these stunts are a fixture of the past and are inferior to the tactics being employed by successful right-wing minor parties across the rest of the West.

To take a dive back in history, and at the American context, Nixon upended the outdated political communication style by employing the infamous ‘Californian ad-men’ to much success. In 2016, Trump made use of an emergent Twitter in a revolutionary way to catch the world's attention, recently, various European hard-right parties such as Alternative for Deutschland, and National Rally have done much the same with TikTok. The closest example of similar advancements in Australia, though it is more of an import than an innovation, is the use of bombastic ‘American-style’ campaign techniques by Advance Australia which showed some proof of success in the No-vote victory the organisation contributed to.

With Australia’s major party’s backroom consensus to never discuss immigration policy broken by Albanese, the race is on to develop the most effective communication and policy for advancing immigration restriction. The establishment-supportive media has desperately attempted to guard against the so-called ‘importation of American culture wars’. Is this because the establishment is frightened of foreign cultures? Their support for multiculturalism and mass immigration suggests otherwise. Instead it is the establishment’s knowledge of the shattering effect values-based politics will have on the status quo.

Second, innovation and experimentation with party structure. I would like to draw special attention to the breakout stars in Australia’s 2022 Federal election; the ‘Teal Independents’. Funded by philanthropist Simon Holmes à Court, the Teal Independents used a hybrid between the strength of a traditional political party structure and the leanness of an independent candidacy to spring from one seat held to six, doing great damage to the established Liberal Party in Sydney. There exist enough wealthy conservative donors in Australia to create a right-wing equivalent that funded preferred candidates in both major parties, and promising minor party or independent candidates. The influence of such a group would push Australia towards nationalism over the course of several elections and incentivise the major parties to follow suit.

Politically Defending

We take it for granted that supporting nationalist politics comes with a tremendous cost. Anyone who stands to the ideological right of the mainstream puts themselves at risk of being banned from social media, slandered by the media, jeopardises their employment, scorned by family and friends and in the worst instances physically attacked by rabid leftists or minorities - all for an extremely slim shot at political victory. What man with bright prospects would accept that trade-off?

The solution is simple by difficult to implement sustainably. Nationalists need a dedicated, fearless and effective legal organisation willing to fight battles against the left and challenge the government’s increasingly ridiculous legislation. Ezra Lavant’s Canadian-based ‘Rebel News’ has demonstrated how profit-seeking lawfare can be used for great personal gain, a selfless nationalist alternative dedicated to legal activism is required. This would be a massive game-changer.

Subscribe now

Conclusion

Adventure is still alive today, but it can only be found in the worlds of cutting-edge business, and high-risk dissident politics. We must begin to merge these two worlds and begin to put into action some of the ideas suggested within this article.

Nothing suggested in this article is unattainable. In one of the most challenging political environments on earth, the multi-sector ‘Solidarity’ company in South Africa has provided political and legal protections to the embattled White South African population with an efficiency that could not be expected of a political party. In the rest of the Western world where Whites are for now a majority our task is even easier.

Small groups of highly motivated, inventive young men have already changed the world several times this century, if any force can avert the fate of our civilisation, it will be men of this calibre working to do so. The question is, are you one of them?

Written by John Lawson, find more of his content on 𝕏 @JohnLawson_TNO

Out of disgust towards the condition of the modern West many instinctively turn to systems of government stripped of the decrepit and dishonest qualities which characterise ‘liberal democracy’ in search of alternative solutions. Members of both the Left and Right have in recent years grown comfortable forwarding radically alternate systems of leadership selection and government, authoritarian and libertine alike, however, I believe for the most part they are missing the mark.

Generally, the most alluring aspect of these alternative solutions is the streamlined action-oriented elements they provide, often at the expense of reduced guardrails that might protect against tyrannical abuses of power or corruption.

Subscribe now

Some of our country’s greatest men were quasi-dictators; Governor Macquarie, Governor Arthur Phillip and Joh Bjelke Peterson just to name a few. When these selflessly-motivated men come to power society flourishes as they are capable of wielding the full power of the state to swiftly correct societal ills and redirect resources towards rapid technological, moral and legal advancement. Governor Arthur Phillip successfully planted the seed of civilisation on the Australian continent, Governor Macquarie reestablished order after the corruption of his rum-trading predecessor left the colony of NSW in disarray, and Joh Bjelke oversaw the transformational development of Queensland.

On the other hand, however, as we are so often warned by popular and news media - when tyrannical, selfish men claw their way to the top position, little stands in the way of their abusive will. Examples include Governor-General John Kerr who used his station to carry out his petty personal revenge, Governor Macarthur the corrupt rum-trading predecessor of Governor Macquarie, and Joh Bjelke for being Joh Bjelke.

Taking all this into account, I believe that an answer is to be found in Australia’s own history that combines the advantages of democracy (peaceful transitions of power, stability & oversight) with the benefits of authoritarian systems (speed, directness and the ability to pursue a grander vision). This is the system of government that carried 6 colonies at the end of the world to become the Australian nation in 1901 and even still lingered to some degree throughout our rapid ascent from nationhood to a position as one of the world leaders in the realms of quality of life, industry, technological advancement and military capability; that system can be best labelled as illiberal democracy.

Join the National Observer Discord

‘Illiberal democracy’ as I define it in opposition to ‘liberal democracy’, is a representative system of government in which ministers are selected by a vote limited to only certain subsets of the population, with strict limits on the forces allowed to influence the government formed. A government that resembles this definition could be said to have existed from the 1840s when only wealthy White male landowners had the right to vote, through to the 1850s during which all White men gained the right, through to 1902 when White women followed suit, all the way to its conclusion in the 1940s when all race-based restrictions were finally lifted.

The truly Australian solution to our present decline is to reimpose elements of the anti-liberal democracy that weighted more heavily the opinion of our society’s wisest & most experienced. What would this look like in the modern day? Ideally, it would mean a compulsory requirement that for someone to be eligible to stand as a politician he must be a Christian father of good character, descendant of founding-stock Australians.

More realistically, rolling back the ‘liberal’ element of ‘liberal democracy’ would mean aggressive electoral reform that favours the most conservative elements of society. One way to do this would be to break up some of the largest regional electorates into smaller seats, which owing to the stunted growth of leftism in areas outside of the major cities would in all practicality result in more conservative, Christian founding-stock Australians sitting in Parliament. Similarly, some sort of scheme that awards additional votes to soldiers and ex-servicemen would be another way to give heavier weight to a cohort of Australians who are disproportionately patriotic or possess nationalist instincts. There are many similar solutions (voluntary voting for example) which with enough political will would go a long way to securing a better future for Australia however the details are not especially important at present.

Subscribe now

The other half of restoring an illiberal democracy would be entirely freeing our country of all foreign and hostile interests. This would require an aggressive Mccarthyist treatment of foreign operatives no matter whether they are agents of foes or supposed allies. Further, the power of all lobbies, especially those corrosive to the fabric of Australian life, must be sharply curtailed and the political donation process must be made transparent as glass.

The political impracticality of these ideas is not lost on me, I have absolutely no expectation of them being implemented by the current generation of politicians, however, in a hypothetical future where an Australia-first leader rose to power and wanted to safeguard the country from sinking back to its current state the program I have outlined above would be a good starting point.

Written by John Lawson, find more of his content on 𝕏 @JohnLawson_TNO

This week Zomi Frankom, an Australian civilian, was killed by the Israeli government. The 43-year-old charity worker was working alongside volunteers from the UK, US and Poland to distribute meals in Gaza when she was struck by a missile rained down upon her head by the Israeli Defence Force. Independent journalist Michael West rightfully shamed Netanyahu’s smirking apology video. Recent reporting states that the cars being used by the charity workers were clearly marked, and the IDF likely had advanced knowledge of their presence.

This was not an isolated incident, Israel - a supposed friend of the West - has rained bullets and missiles down on civilians, families and churches all throughout the recent conflict with Hamas.

Yet despite this many conservatives across the Western world have mistakenly developed an affinity for the State of Israel and defend these horrendous actions. Mainstream conservative pundits have long claimed that Israel is a bastion of Western values surrounded by a sea of barbaric radical Islamists, this narrative is troublesome because it completely ignores the history of disloyalty Israel has demonstrated towards the Anglosphere. If Australia is to begin asserting her national interest once again, conservatives must examine Israel’s past and ongoing interactions with our country and understand that we owe Israel nothing.

Subscribe now

Israel’s history of attacking the West

Before one can appreciate the extent of Israel’s disloyalty, it is essential first to know the history of Israel’s founding. Following the First World War Britain promised the organised zionist community possession of the piece of territory formally known as the ‘British mandate of Palestine’. Though the territory had religious and historical significance to Jews, it was inconveniently populated by various religiously and ethnically distinct populations and ruled by the British. So over decades Jews loyal to the vision of a Jewish homeland as described by zionist political and religious thinkers set about clearing their chosen patch of land of these encumbrances.

Nowadays, Hamas and more broadly radical Islam are words synonymous with terrorism and all the horrible images it brings to mind, but a little-known fact is that one heavily employed method by which Israel secured independence from the British was through this very style of terrorism. Two massively emblematic organisations are the Lehi and Irgun.

Irgun, a paramilitary Zionist terror organisation that originally primarily targeted Palestinian Arabs, soon shifted to attacking those upholding the British mandate regime. These bloodthirsty terrorists spared no sympathy for the British regime which had signed the Balfour Declaration promising them the land upon which they would one day build the modern state of Israel. Irgun targeted British police and government personnel such as members of immigration control and members of Lehi assassinated the British minister of state in the Middle East Baron Moyne, and Irgun kidnapped a judge. In 1947 two abducted British Sergeants were hanged. Overall somewhere near 900 British were killed by Israeli terrorists. Zionist terrorists destroyed infrastructure, stole weaponry while disguised as Arabs or British servicemen and made significant use of false flag tactics, the most famous instance undoubtedly being the 1946 Irgun-perpetrated King David Hotel bombing targeting the British Mandate headquarters which killed 91 and injured 46.

Subscribe now

Perhaps what is most astounding about all of this history, is how perpetrators of these attacks went on to staff the modern Israeli government. Former Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir was elected the Prime Minister of Israel in 1983, while Irgun itself was amalgamated into the current ruling Likud Party, of which Netanyahu is presently head. Mind you this was the organisation whose one-time leader and founder of the Likud party, Menachem Begin, famously responded to an interviewer who asked the question “How does it feel, in the light of all that’s going on, to be the father of terrorism in the Middle East?” with “In the Middle East? In all the world!”

It is clear this founding struggle against the British powers, as well as against Palestinian civilians remains within the Israeli consciousness and is reflected in the brutal manner in which the current war against Hamas is being waged and extends to the disdainful treatment of Western civilian casualties.

Subscribe now

Israel’s tampering in domestic affairs

How would Australian intelligence react to the secret kidnapping and imprisonment of an Australian citizen by a Chinese intelligence agency? How would the Prime Minister react to a Chinese intelligence agency forging Australian passports so as to carry out illegal assassinations in Dubai? As you might be able to guess, these examples are not fabricated, a real foreign nation has actually perpetrated both these examples, only it was not China but Israel who carried them out. In 2010 a high-ranking member of Hamas was executed by Mossad in a Dubai hotel room. These Mossad agents used forged Australian passports, and the international goodwill Australia’s reputation granted in order to successfully carry out this operation. On the 24th of May, the Rudd government expelled an Israeli diplomat after concluding that there was "no doubt Israel was behind the forgery of four Australian passports”.

Though denied by influential pro-Israel lobbyist Mark Leibler, both former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and former Foreign Minister & NSW Premier Bob Carr attest to the threats Leibler made to replace Rudd with Julia Gillard if Israel was not pardoned for its actions.

When Ben Zygier, an Australian-Israeli dual citizen and Mossad agent had intent to give information on this targeted assassination to Australian authorities or media, he was imprisoned without stated cause in Israel and in 2010 took his own life. For eight months Zygier was held in a prison where his identity was kept secret from even his jailers and no formal explanation was given for why he was being held in the first place.

Subscribe now

Israeli influence in Australian politics is not always so covert, and I covered multiple means by which the interests of Israel are lobbied for within Australia in a previous article. The most notable example in recent history was when AIJAC president and lifelong zionist activist Mark Leibler used his political weight to have 6 out of 7 living current and former Australian prime ministers sign his open letter condemning Hammas’ recent attacks on Israel. This same Mark Leibler demanding chauvinistic displays of loyalty to Israel from Australia’s political leaders was a prominent proponent of the destructive and anti-Australian Voice to Parliament campaign within Australia! This has been a fixture of Israeli influence within Australia for decades, Prime Minister Paul Keating famously first declared his support of censorious and anti-free-speech ‘race vilification laws’ at Australia’s largest Zionist conference at the behest of many of those in attendance.

Subscribe now

Conclusion

Taking all this domestic and international interference by Israel into account, especially in light of recent events, there should be no question - Australia must end any diplomatic, military and material support it provides to the state of Israel. Anyone who tells you otherwise, no matter if they are a self-proclaimed conservative, must be questioned and their loyalty to Australia be held in question. Australia must assert her own national interest, and members of our political, and media class who are pro-Israel must be regarded for what they truly are: anti-Australian.

Written by John Lawson, find more of his content on 𝕏 @JohnLawson_TNO

Australia is in a bad state.

Immorality is rampant and mainstream, Christianity is in precipitous decline, our national sovereignty is a joke, and most irreversibly our nation’s Anglo-Celtic & European founding stock is on track to extinction within only a few decades if current immigration and birth rates continue. All this has come about because the commonwealth, created by White Australians for their own benefit and the benefit of their children, has been stolen by an elite class who now oppose the original founding principles. If we wish to prevent the myriad injustices currently being inflicted against Australia, Christians, nationalists and more broadly the dissident-right must regain control of the Commonwealth. This article is dedicated to describing how we will go about accomplishing this seemingly impossible task.

Before I can begin, it is essential to first demonstrate that Australian liberal democracy does not function in the way you have been told it does, the changes that have befallen our nation did not come about through happenstance, and it certainly did not come about through consideration of the popular will. The Australian society we live in today has been crafted from top to bottom by the direct decisions of our elite class. Dr Frank Salter & Harry Richardson’s book ‘Anglophobia’ details countless examples of how this elite class, and its changing composition, have ruinously steered the course of the nation to our current position.

Subscribe now

Former Labor MP of Australia’s largest electorate Graeme Campbell also succinctly describes the hostile shift in Australia’s elite class in his book ‘Australia Betrayed’,

“Australian leadership elites in politics, the bureaucracy, academia, big business, the churches and the media have effectively cut themselves adrift from the interests of the majority of Australians. Many have betrayed the trust of the people they are supposed to represent.

As part of this process the elites, while they may mouth concern for the country, have given up thinking in terms of the national interest to pursue an internationalist agenda. This agenda is eroding the foundations of our nation and marginalising the majority, which has less and less say in its own destiny.

The bulk of the media, charged with a watchdog role in the public interest, have become active agents in this process. Academics, artists and others who are supposed to be independent-minded have become propagandists and intellectually corrupt hirelings.”

This constellation of decision-making institutions listed by Mr Campbell is what I refer to simply as the ‘Australian Regime’.

Contrary to the popular myth, real power is not held by the majority population who elect and depose their own leaders at the ballot box. All power in any modern mass society is monopolised by the private and governmental elite. Consider our political parties, for instance, no candidate can retain their endorsement without maintaining strict obedience to the party’s leadership. Similarly, in the cultural arena, those who express a worldview departing from the mainstream consensus on controversial but important topics such as race for example are aggressively expelled from the most prestigious and powerful private institutions. I have further detailed the undemocratic manner in which Australia’s elite class disincentivises organised political dissent in my article ‘Democracy as Regime’, but for the purposes of this article, it suffices to recognise that the general population has next to no influence over how the country is operated.

Subscribe now

It is not the popular opinion that drives the actions of our state and the consistent unpopularity of mass immigration paired with the decades of climbing immigration rates is proof enough of this fact. American Paleo-Conservative intellectual Paul Gottfried gives an alternate explanation for the departure of our supposedly democratic decision-making process from the popular will in his book ‘After Liberalism’,

“In Western Europe and North America, this state rests its power upon a multitiered following: an underclass and now middle-class welfariate, a self-assertive public sector, and a vanguard of media and journalistic public defenders. Upon the basis of this following, the regime and its apologists have been able to marginalize their opposition.”

Taking this into account certain avenues must be considered firmly closed to those attempting to usurp the presently prevailing Australian regime. As it stands, the dissident-right has near to no resources, limited manpower, and weak organisational abilities, all while the regime is ruthlessly opposed to our ideology and holds a death grip on power. Any attempt to change this country will necessarily be an asymmetric conflict so trying to face the enemy face-on, wearing a team uniform and announcing your intention to bring about the downfall of the regime in advance is the strategic equivalent of trying to fight the US military with nothing but a slingshot in hand and a kick-me sign on your back. In contrast, the only strategies that will work will necessarily look much more like how the current ruling elite worked their way into power and less like the failed far-right street gangs and protest groups of the past.

Subscribe now

A notable example worth examining is Australia’s most successful radical political movement - Communism. Historian Stuart McIntyre has recorded in depth how at the height of their power Australian communists successfully took over the leadership of several worker’s unions, embedded themselves so deep within the Australian Labor Party they temporarily caused it to splinter in two and founded their own party explicitly running and winning elections on communist talking points. While the overwhelmingly anti-communist Australian elite & security agencies of the time tried every option in their power to harass and strangle the incipient political movement, there was no end to the supply of zealous new radicals signing up for the cause. It was only the decline and collapse of the Soviet Union and with it the credibility of the ideology that concluded the power of the movement - a factor we Australian nationalists thankfully do not have to contend with. Developing a similarly broad range of serious attempts to claim power from the Australian regime must be placed as a top priority for the Australian dissident-right if we wish to achieve even a fraction of Australian communism’s success.

Acquiring enough power to overturn the presiding regime may appear a herculean task, but we have certain advantages today that our predecessors did not, of these the most crucial is the democratisation of the media landscape brought about through the proliferation of social media and the smartphone. While the established academic institutions, media and lobbies retain a relatively high barrier of entry we have another great advantage in the relative disinterest in politics among the Australian population compared to America and Europe. This fact combined with our declining political participation means obtaining a position within, and scaling the rungs of establishment politics, has never been so easy. A friend of mine often repeats the adage ‘there are only 40 young liberals in each state’, a reference to the fact that only a tiny fraction of the Young Liberal’s on-paper membership is actively engaged in politics, and by extension, qualified to ascend to higher ranks within the party.

The best use of resources and manpower is thus for members of the Australian dissident-right to gain positions of influence in major, politically relevant institutions with a focus on the Coalition. This can include getting a job in conservative media, studying law, becoming a political staffer and eventually standing as a candidate at election time. This process can be accelerated by cautious networking.

Subscribe now

As people rise through the party, it is inevitable some will be discovered to hold inconveniently right-wing beliefs and consequently suffer expulsion. It would be highly beneficial for these individuals to found a nationalist minor party focussed on winning local council elections running on a localist, NIMBY & cultural conservative platform, under the leadership of the individual with the most experience.

It would be financially irresponsible and strategically inept for this nationalist minor party to attempt to run candidates at the federal or state level, there have been early demonstrations of success for this model from the UK’s Homeland Party and Ireland’s National Party. The focus should be on building the best possible reputation by efficiently operating local government to the benefit of the constituents. This could be achieved by lowering rates, improving the efficiency of services and even replacing the ugly council-sponsored art installations that now litter many suburbs with pieces that make constituents proud of their suburb. These details are not especially important for now.

The gradual establishment of this nationalist minor party will lay the foundations for a true alternative.

Subscribe now

While some are quietly working their way into a position within the Coalition whereby they can become a member of parliament, others will leaflet, campaign and generally work to expand the nationalist minor party. In a best-case scenario, slowly an ascendant dissident-right faction will take over all key positions within the Liberal and National parties, converting them into true representatives of Australia’s interests.

In a far more likely scenario, we will reach a point of diminishing returns at which no further ground can be gained within the Coalition, once this point is reached, whether it is when we have only a handful of MPs onside or half the parliament, a coordinated defection from the Coalition can be made by all those who hold dissident-right convictions to the nationalist minor party which has slowly been constructed over years. Unlike previous minor party projects, our theoretical nationalist minor party would already have existing infrastructure and political experience. This will instantly create a force capable of rivalling the Coalition in terms of credibility and professionalism.

From this point onwards, the task is simple - all hands on deck to expand the nationalist splinter party to a point where it completely replaces the now fragile and discredited Coalition. From here it is a very short road to major party status, and by extension, the prime ministership.

Where to begin?

There are not nearly enough Australians able or willing to dedicate their life to working to displace the traitorous elites governing our country or preventing the irreversible and destructive forces they are inflicting on the nation. This means the first order of business is to raise awareness of the problems our country is facing, in other words, we need to produce coherent and professional media to redpill the masses. If you appreciate the work the National Observer is doing in this domain and would like to assist us to reach the next level we would greatly appreciate your monetary support.

Monetarily support the National Observer

For those who already agree and are interested in being involved in the solution, I encourage joining any right-wing major party, keeping your cards close to your chest, and working to ascend to a point where you can stand at elections. Of course, others need to place themselves in supporting roles; we need political staffers, economists, lawyers, academics, and those working towards owning their own businesses or developing a disposable income they can commit to funding political projects.

Organisations and institutions must simultaneously be built up by those willing and able to explain our worldview publicly. We need other institutions for more explicit ideological support and independent action outside of any political parties as well. These include media properties such as the National Observer, ethnic lobbies and think tanks such as the British Australian Community and fraternities such as the Australian Natives Association. Participating in any of these, while also being a member of a party and building a career do not, in general, need to be mutually exclusive actions.

It is an often repeated adage that ‘the best defence is a good offence’, and the concept of Australia Month is a great offence.

Australia has been betrayed by almost every member of our current ruling class. The cost of living in this country is flying through the roof along with inflation, interest rates, congestion and house prices - all fuelled by decades of record high immigration intake and a bloated bureaucracy. This is all without mentioning the single most consequential impact of these factors, that being the demographic replacement of White Australians which will see us shrink to a minority of our own country’s population within our lifetime.

Subscribe now

None of these problems can be truly rectified until Australians develop an iron will to rectify them. The only problem? Australian education and mainstream media has brainwashed generations of Australians, and most detrimentally White Anglo-Celtic Australians, into believing that Australia’s history is a dark one, only remediable by costly government programs and social engineering. This barrage on our country is given its most potent expression by the effort to erase Australia Day from the 26th of January and replace it with the vision of those who march in the mass ‘Invasion Day’ protests - an Australia paralysed with guilt for its past.

The good news? This brainwashing is yet to fully effect over 60% of Australians, who when asked in a yes or no question whether they believe in the Aboriginal victimhood/White guilt telling of Australian history raised one finger and wrote two letters.

Whatever your opinions of the man, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott said it best in his article for the Australian following the No victory, in reference to flying the Aboriginal flag alongside the Australian flag and acknowledgment of country ceremonies he commented that

"If the people's vote is to be respected, it should mean abandoning, or at least scaling back, recent concessions to separatism"

Subscribe now

Abbot is absolutely correct, the No victory is our mandate to reclaim Australia, an absolutely essential task. The current roadblock in between our present situation and immigration restriction, moral governance and an Australian renaissance is the current aura of shame that hangs over the majority of Australians’ conception of their past and present. This shame emanates from, like mentioned above, a carefully fabricated narrative that Australia’s founders were immoral men who built the country upon a foundation of abusing racial minorities for the fun of it, joined with a media concocted image of Australian patriotism being low class, both claims that eminent historians such as Professor Keith Windschuttle along with several participating organisations in the Australia Month campaign such as the British Australian Community and Australian Natives Association continue doing good work to disprove.

So what has all this got to do with the idea of dedicating January to celebrating Australia? Well, like I quoted at the very beginning of this article - the best defence is a good offence. While the No campaign successfully defended Australia against the Voice, it is the Australia month campaign taking the No victory to its logical conclusion and constructing a positive vision for Australian patriots & nationalists to pursue. Not only is Australia not an evil nation, it is a great nation, built by great men that deserves advancement - this is the true idea behind Australia Month. January should dedicated to celebrating Australia’s founders, pioneers, explorers, colonists, inventors, sportsmen, cultural achievements and history.

Sign the Petition

To join in on the campaign the most important thing you can do is sign the offical petition which has already received over 200 signatures in only a few days. Personally, I generally place very little faith in petitions, but in this case I urge everyone to sign, a large number of signatures will act as a demonstration of public support when Dusty, myself and others ask members of various parties for their backing. Another great way to promote the campaign is to attach #AustraliaMonth to your social media posts throughout January. Already the hashtag has gone trending momentarily and received support from a wide variety of Australians, perhaps most notably One Nation Senator Malcom Roberts.

By officially recognising January as a month to boldly assert our pride in our history, culture and people we can sweep away the false telling of our past cynically crafted by the left and and in doing so rebuild an unabashed consciousness of Australian identity, because it is only by restoring this Australian identity that we can restore Australia to her former glory, reverse our demographic replacement and raise her to new heights in the future.

So, to all National Observer readers, from January 1st Federation Day to January 26th, we hope you have a happy Australia Month!

Australian conservatives are beautiful losers. Australian conservatives for generations have failed to meaningfully conserve any aspect of Australian society and instead, as the whole nation has lurched radically leftward, our conservative figureheads and institutions have followed willingly. Nowadays, our supposed centre-right Liberal party presents next to no ideological opposition to the left, while minor parties and pundits are are similarly cowardly.

It was not always this way. Below are the stories of four conservatives who, rejecting petty party politics and personal gain, forged a new path for their constituents and in turn have handed down a brilliant example to those among todays right-wing who wish to restore and advance Australia.

Subscribe now

Governor of NSW Lachlan Macquarie

Lachlan Macquarie came to power as the fifth governor of the colony of New South Wales in 1810 following a turbulent period for the fledgling colony, his processor, 4th governor of the colony Governor William Bligh had recently been ousted in a military coup. Colonial NSW was in a poor state when he was appointed, a roaring illicit rum trade (control of which had inspired the before mentioned coup) had all but replaced currency in the colony and moral standards had fallen to such a low that it was estimated 1/2 of all convict women practiced prostitution and 1/3 of all children born in the colony were illegitimate. Governor Macquarie upon his appointment restored order to the colony, restricted the rum trade and put in place policies which encouraged moral family formation.

His achievements do not end here, the governor was also responsible for more than 260 public works, founded the city of Bathurst and personally planned the layout of Hobart. In fact his nation building projects were so prolific that he often came into conflict with the British authorities. This commitment was in line with his vision of the Australian colonies growing into more than a mere penal colonies and he began the process of awarding convicts citizenships following the completion of their sentence, likely contributing to Australia’s modern culture of egalitarian class dynamics.

Governor Macquarie is often referred to as the father of Australia, in part because he was the first to give our country the name, but also in large part because of the weight of his many achievements. The Australian right would do well to study the life of Macquarie, taking careful note of both the sweeping moral reforms he enacted as well as his awe-inspiring nation-building.

Subscribe now

SA Premier Sir Thomas Playford IV

Sir Thomas Playford is a name that even the most politically knowledgeable Aussies have likely never heard. Playford rose through the ranks of the South Australian Liberal party advocating for economic liberalisation in South Australia and eventually served the longest term of any elected government minister in Australian history by legislating the exact opposite. Rather than disbanding the power of the state government, once premier Playford won his election he immediately began to use his position to greatly benefit the state of South Australia through protectionist economic policies. His primary means of achieving this was through low taxes, cheap electricity for manufacturers and maintaining low wages (while providing public housing and keeping living costs low through price controls), simultaneously his aggressive forwarding of South Australia’s interests won the state greater shares of federal funding. All this taken together had the effect of creating a massive population boom in South Australia and a rapid growth in the middle class.

Playford was also famous for his socially conservative policies limiting alcohol and gambling in the state, a logical progression from the widespread drunkedness he witnessed among the ANZAC troops during the world wars and his responsibilities enforcing moral standards among the troops; Playford often assisted in dragging ANZAC trainees from the beds of Egyptian prostitutes and back to camp.

Playford brilliantly demonstrated that free market capitalism is not sacred in-and-of itself and instead functions best when subordinated to the power of the state and used as a powerful instrument to secure the interest of his South Australian constituents. Modern conservatives would do well to learn from Playford and reject the tentacles of foreign investment which are throttling our nation’s development - no matter if it means violating the rigid ideological tenants of free-market capitalism.

Subscribe now

NSW Premier Jack Lang

To many modern conservatives, Jack Lang’s membership in the Labor Party immediately excludes him from being listed among their ranks. These conservatives are wrong.

It may surprise many to learn that until very recently the Australian Labor Party represented Australia’s foreign and domestic interests far better than any of its political adversaries - being able to claim credit for preserving the integrity of Australia’s borders and demography, representing Christian social teachings in both its economic management and social policy and, especially in the case of Jack Lang, opposing the growth of marxism and communism in Australia.

Lang’s career began from humble beginnings but through a combination of intelligence, strength and sheer force of personality rose to the position of NSW premier and at his height commanded the loyalty of a massive proportion of the state’s population. His foray into politics began when out of his own initiative he successfully lead the residents of Silverware and Newington to form their own local government when the NSW government of the day failed to do so, from there he was reluctantly prodded into state politics by his community and he slowly worked his way through the ranks. Lang came to power at a time when NSW was still suffering the effects of WWI and the Great Depression and to remedy this initiated the construction of grand infrastructure projects such as the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, a policy that saw the creation of hundreds of new jobs and successfully revitalised the economy.

Simultaneously, Lang battled the coordinated Communist infiltration of the ALP, writing several books explaining the incompatibility of communism with Australia’s home-grown labor tradition and eventually when he found the infiltration to be overwhelming, created his own breakaway party named “Anti-Communist Labor” colloquially known as Lang Labor.

Lang’s proposed radical economic reforms intended to shatter the power of the banks in NSW resulted in his removal from his position by the governor-general, and though at the time he could easily have defied this order by calling upon the NSW police force and various Labor militias which were fiercely loyal to him to oppose the comparatively evenly-matched Australian military, he ultimately made the decision to comply because he felt doing so would be violating Christ’s teachings.

All in all, Jack Lang’s legacy is an example of how a conservative in government, should he wish to, could put his people first in a radical manner.

Subscribe now

Prime Minister Billy Hughes

Left-wing historian Peter Cochrane in his book ‘Best we Forget: The war for White Australia’ describes Prime Minister William Morris ‘Billy’ Hughes as nothing short of an unstoppable force of nature;

there was one parliamentarian who, throughout the debates on the defence bill and the naval agreement, was given to his own dark premonitions. He proceeded not from this objection or that but from a carefully formulated and thought-out policy for the long- term salvation of the nation, a rock-solid philosophy of all life as ruthless struggle. That parliamentarian was Billy Hughes, sentinel, prophesier, race fanatic and torchbearer for preparedness.

Hughes owed far more to Hobbes and Social Darwinism than he did to the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. He thought democracy a fragile thing, imperilled by its virtues. He saw the world as a racial battlefield, and the cut and thrust of imperial rivalry as an ever-present threat to Australia. He thought the natural conditions of humankind were inherently violent, and the relations between nation states nothing but war and conquest punctuated by occasional interludes.

Though Hughes had his faults, his most admirable trait was his single minded, unswerving commitment to his nation. Hughes had the foresight to recognise the Japanese threat but also the fortitude to chart a course to protecting Australia from said threat.

For most Australians, ‘right-wing minor party’ is probably a synonym for ‘corruption’, ‘failure’ and ‘personality cult’ - in many ways they would be right. An authentic Australian right has for a long time been electorally handicapped by these ailments.

Perhaps most emblematic of this is Pauline Hanson’s One Nation which has, oftentimes to the exclusion of success, revolved around Hanson herself. Mark Latham’s recent departure from the party is emblematic of this fact though she is not alone. Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party is another example of how ego-centrism has limited political viability - had he contributed his resources to supporting One Nation rather than his own political party Australia might have had a successful populist right in parliament today. These parties have also drifted leftwards over time, compromising on key principles in a hopeless tactic to win mainstream acceptance and votes to a point where today the party’s are a shadow of their former selves without having gained anything for their compromise. This is without even examining the countless examples of micro parties, none of which have stood the test of time or secured any meaningful victory.

Subscribe now

In stark contrast to this, just across the Tasman Sea is the New Zealand First party who, lead by Winston Peters recently secured 6.5% of the national vote and 8 seats in parliament. Though this may appear minor, this result will likely mean the other larger centre-right parties will be forced into forming a coalition government with NZF. I took the opportunity to reach out to some friends from the land of the long white cloud one who goes by the name @MasterVril on 𝕏 along with another who wished to remain anonymous and asked them about their thoughts on the New Zealand First Party and it’s future.

Below I have recorded their thoughts, before and after the election.

Subscribe now

Pre-Election

National Observer:
I’ve heard claims that if elected, NZFirst will be the most right wing government in anglosphere, is this realistic?

Anonymous:
Well, we're quite certain, at this stage, that the coallition will be formed with New Zealand First (NZF).

Winston Peters and the NZF party is a strictly populist and Nationalist, "with a capital N", party.

I haven't ever known NZF to be a liberal party, to be honest. Their primary concern is the flourishing of New Zealand and the existing population of New Zealand, ie, they don't want to introduce more immigrants, and Winston Peters is well aware of the culture war, and I'm pretty sure he understands that fighting a culture war is necessary to achieving national prosperity while retaining and preserving an anglo-celtic/maori identity.

The thing with co-governance, is that there is an equal share in authority between NAT/ACT/NZF. National and Act are considered right wing parties here, but they are both considered neo-liberal, too. The NATS and ACT parties are only culturally right wing, for example, they are in disagreement with such things as men in women's toilets, but will not act on it to stop it, unlike NZF, who would definitely do that.

I would say that NZ would definitely have more of a right wing government than Australia, probably Britain too. It would be more right wing than USA as is, and, to be honest, even if and when Trump gets in, Winston will still be more right wing than Trump. He won't shill to Israel, and he is also against abortion and other such practices.

Subscribe now

National Observer:
What can we expect from NZF if they win?

@MasterVril:

Well NZF is currently polling between 5 and 6% which on election night they usually score a point higher so maybe 6 to 7% of the vote. What would then happen is that a coalition would have to be formed with National and ACT. Now it’s maybe just a bit less than a 50/50 chance that Nat/ACT won't need them to form a government. However most people assume the Nats will want to bring them in even if they are have majority to make sure they have the numbers in 2026.

Now assuming this coalition forms, NZF will only be a small part of it and can only expect to have small policy gains. These most likely will come from the 2023 campaign bottom lines. The 3 large factions NZF pulled into their camp this election was the anti-vax, anti-Maori, and the anti-trans. I would then assume things like the abolition of all vaccine mandates and a formal enquiry into the covid response. The abolition of co-governance and the restoration of English as the primary language. ACT also have similar policies as well as sympathetic Nat MPs meaning they will probably go ahead. The last being anti-trans policies will not be allowed to go ahead.

Subscribe now

National Observer:
Should the dissident right be excited about New Zealand First succeeding?

@MasterVril:

The party and the dissident right have overlapping aims. NZF is really just a civnat party and that's the only difference. About a decade ago the party stopped being so openly hostile to Asian migration when before they campaigned directly against the "Asian Invasion" and talked demographic change. Now they just say raw numbers need to drop and migrants need to "share our values".

Economically they are anti foreign investment and pro state development and wary of free markets which would also be in line with nationalists.

The impact on the broader right is that most people don't actually see them on the right and they themselves say they are in the centre. The mainstream right hate them because NZF have basically stalled the neoliberal reforms which many still see as incomplete. While socially they are hard to the right of everyone else but instinct tribalism means lots of rw voters don't see this. The media does treat them seriously however younger journos under 50 don't. They cant see the difference between how Winston campaigns and how he governs which are completely different to each other.

Subscribe now

Post-Election

National Observer:
I was wondering if you had any thoughts post-election on the result. What does NZF success mean?

Anonymous:
As we expected, Winston did well at 6.5% for NZF, bringing back 8 seats to Parliament. As it stands, National and ACT only APPEAR to be able to form a government - but they can't/won't, and they will need Winston to do that. Right now, the three main things I can see happening are Winston:

a) becoming Deputy Prime Minister

b) becoming speaker of the house

c) bargaining for some bloody good portfolios

I am hoping for b), since Winston has already held Deputy Prime Minister in the past a few times, and it isn't that powerful a position, despite the street cred, and, because unlike bargaining for a nice portfolio/s, the speaker of the house can conduct an orchestra in like manner: even if the instruments in the orchestra are in bad condition, a good conductor goes a long way to produce quite a performance regardless. Just in general, a respectable populist powerhouse, such as Winston, being in the centre of the show, has the potential to urge powerful cultural shifts in Parliament.

NZF's success means that the NZ Parliament receives a staunchly nationalist "with a capital N", populist, conservative party in government co-allition with National and ACT. It means we have a spanner in the works. National and ACT are liberals, but because they are forced into the co-allition, they're going to have to consult our Kingmaker first, and they're going to have 8 MPs to answer to.

National Observer:
What’s next for New Zealand First?

Anonymous:
We simply can't know what NZF is going to do for sure, before these votes are all collected - we need to know what they are actually working with. But if you mean in general, I would say that Winston is going to act on some statements he's made on the "culture war" here in New Zealand. He's going to say some things, as he does, which is going to shock people and encourage conversation. He's a bit like New Zealand's Trump. So, I think New Zealand is going to begin to examine itself, as it pertains to issues which are being more widely recognized, like migration, population, foreign relations, climate debate, and race relations.

Subscribe now

National Observer:
I wanted to ask what your thoughts were on the election result, NZF’s performance, where to next, what this will change etc

@MasterVril:

On the result we are still waiting for the special votes to be counted, but they usually favor the left meaning Labour or greens up 1 and the Nats down 1 seat. This pushes ACT and National down to 60 losing their majority so NZF will be required to get over the line.

On NZFs performance taken from 3 years ago it was a good campaign especially since they were polling low 2s even 1% and it's hard to get momentum when you aren't near the 5% threshold. However by bringing together the 3 minor cultural war issues Winston was able to get enough support especially by collapsing Democracy NZ and stealing their candidates. The result wasn't as good as the last couple weeks of polls however over the long term it was a good campaign.

From here coalition talks are underway and after the government is formed they need to not only deliver policy wins but keep an independent identity from the Nats and not let their achievements get claimed by them. Often smaller parties loose support when in government.

For the long term, the future isn't good since Winston is the Party, and the Party is Winston so once he leaves it is unlikely that it will be able to carry on, on it's own.

National Observer:
Do you have any thoughts on what the NZ Dissident Right should do from here? How the party can outgrow Winston in the future?

@MasterVril:

I don't think the party can really outlast Winston. What the dissident right needs to do is form a new organisation since the last one being Action Zealandia crumbled. I would prefer a more academic and ideas based discussion group rather than one that goes stickering and on Bush walks.

On Saturday 14th of October 2023 Australia went to the polls and in landslide numbers voted ‘Yes’ to restoring Australian identity - they did so by writing a bold ‘NO’ in response to PM Albanese’s Voice to Parliament proposal.

We are already seeing voting data released from the electorates with the largest Aboriginal populations and to the shock and horror of university professors nationwide, White Australians who have to experience the disorder of Aboriginal communities voted strongly against giving the same community more power in the government. This is great news, I believe it is a concrete demonstration that the ‘No’ victory was an organic reaction by most Australians against their growing dispossession from the political process and the White-guilt narrative that has been shovelled down their throats for the better part of the last fifty years. In an upcoming article the National Observer team will give an in-depth analysis of the publicly-released voting data and debunk some of the myths being spread about it, but today I would like to take a look at what the Voice result means for the future.

Subscribe now

Where to for the Left?

For Australia’s left, the referendum’s failure marks their first significant loss in many decades, but it would be a mistake to expect them to take it lying down. Multiculturalism, gun control, same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia - liberalism and her agents have not lost a signifiant cultural battle in decades. Over this time the Australian left has gathered strong momentum and as we are now witnessing with the announcement of state-wide Aboriginal advisory bodies in Queensland, NSW, Victoria and South Australia, the Voice’s failure is only a minor speed bump on the road to their imagined utopia.

Needless to say, a policy victory such as the introduction of state-wide ‘voice’ and ‘treaties’ will not be satisfactory to the left, much like Donald Trump’s 2016 election win in America and Brexit’s success in the UK, Australia’s 2023 No victory will to a degree act as a beacon in the sky to both side of politics. To the ideological left and their representatives in academia, media and politics the No victory is concrete proof that racism still runs rampant in the minds of a majority of Australians - an unconscionable scenario that demands immediate action.

Subscribe now

One answer to the referendum loss we hear echoing from some public intellectuals is a call to radicalism. I am sceptical to the extent this call will be heeded, I highly doubt the threats we are hearing will meaningfully materialise - we have seen how estranged Lidia Thorpe has been from the broader left for her own ‘radical’ branding, I do not expect many to follow her lead.

Instead, the more effective counter-offensive is being led by Albanese with his spinning the No victory as a product of ‘mis/dis-information’ and using this as proof towards the necessity of his disinformation bill. This disinformation bill will prevent ordinary Australians from freely critiquing the government on social media by forcing social media companies to censor any posts the Australian government deems false. It is easy to envision a future in which this disinformation bill, if passed, will be used to manufacturing consent for future policies damaging to the Australian public’s best interest. Albanese is certainly wise to bring this bill to the forefront in a time when his own party is bitter about the voice’s failure, we will have to wait and see if the coalition will resist being browbeaten into submission.

Subscribe now

Where to for the Right?

For Australia’s right, the No victory represents the first public affirmation of Australian identity since the end of the White Australia Policy fifty years ago, and though it would be ideal to carry this momentum forward into pursuing action on other pressing issues such as curbing mass-immigration, I believe this is a highly unlikely outcome.

Both the Yes and No campaigns were crafted, won and lost by the political establishment. Any influence members of the dissident-right possessed was only a function of our grafting ourselves onto the official No campaign. Without Liberal party endorsement the No vote never would have won, and to the Liberal party mass-immigration is hugely profitable. They have not offered any meaningful choice to Australian voters on immigration policy in a long time, they’re not about to start now.

Subscribe now

Having recognised this fact, I can safely say that the substance of the No campaign was not the reason the Voice failed. By objective metrics the No campaign was outgunned in terms of spending, organisation as well as in terms of mainstream media and moral support.

The most promising reality of the No victory is that it demonstrates the ‘quiet Australians’ often alluded to by the Liberal party are very real, only (as we can see clearly from recent federal and state election results) it is not strongly attracted to the Liberal brand of milquetoast conservatism. In the lead-up to the election, I saw very few No campaign signs in public, while it was fairly common to sight Yes campaign signs ziptied to front gates and Yes23 bumper stickers on bumper bars. Simultaneously, local and international celebrities for the most part threw their support behind Yes while sometimes publicly condemning the No vote.
If one were to have predicted the referendum’s result judged purely by outspoken support by the general public, you would have come to the conclusion that a Yes victory was certain to win by a landslide. Instead, the landslide was delivered by ‘Quiet Australians’.

Subscribe now

The No-voting silent majority are Australian nationalists, they just don’t know it yet. This voting block, much like Trump voters in the US and Brexit voters in the UK is the population the authentic right must work to win to our side. Australian nationalism must be catered towards winning over this population. As Albanese and the left-wing establishment works overtime to demonise No voters by accusing them of being ‘ignorant’ ‘racists’, guilty of believing ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ we can expect this majority to increasingly resent the left.

Another thing we now know is that a significant proportion of the Australian population possesses some degree of Australian identity or distrust in the political class, but is yet to be lured by any of the existing lacklustre right-wing minor party electoral menu options.

There are numerous possible reasons for this. The ‘alternative’ political offering on display at unofficial No rallies are honestly embarrassing. The same small cadre of grifting freedom-movement celebrities and failed politicians continue to rear their heads at any event that will host them. The very simple solution to this is quality control. With no major culture wars on the horizon I hope this clique will be starved of oxygen and a new, authentic right wing movement will emerge to challenge the establishment and attract the support of ordinary No voters.

Subscribe now

Conclusion

To meet the threat of a newly energised left and politically militant Labor Party, Australian nationalists and the broader dissident-right must consolidate their influence and provide an authentic alternative to the major parties and the political establishment for the No-voting public. How this will be done remains to be seen.

An amazing burst of life has swept through Australia’s political class, and personally, I find it inspiring.

This week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s party has patriotically projected the Australian flag onto Sydney’s Opera House and called in advance for a planned anti-Australian opposition march to be ‘abandoned’, not to be outdone, opposition leader Peter Dutton has since called for the deportation of the subversive protestors who chanted anti-Australian slogans in front of the lit-up Opera House.

Well… not quite. I have to admit that previous paragraph was almost entirely false: The Labor Party did not project the Australian flag on to the Opera House this week, that would be Israel’s flag. Similarly it was not anti-Australian protestors the PM and opposition leader condemned and threatened with deportation, that would be anti-Israel protestors.

Subscribe now

But I wasn’t lying when I said I found the actions of our political class this week inspiring.

I am inspired imagining what a truly Australia first leader could do with these powers. Unfortunately for now, this is only a fantasy, our current Australian government seems eager to project anything but Australian patriotic symbols onto the Opera House and anti-Australian protestors are being given their own constitutionally-enshrined advisory body!

This recent middle-eastern conflict has drawn attention to the stark problems of multiculturalism as a concept, curiously many who have spent their whole career defending the concept strangely seem extremely discontented and confused with this policy’s logical conclusion - ethnic conflict. For decades now, warnings of the faults and dangers of multiculturalism and diversity have gone unheeded across the Anglosphere. Whether we look to history or data, the reality is obvious to anyone untainted by progressive liberalism: multicultural societies will never be harmonious societies.

Subscribe now

Case in point, Israelis and Palestinians with strong ethnic loyalties have not, are not and will not create a peaceful society when living together. The same is true of Russians and Ukrainians, Indians and Pakistanis, Lebanese and Anglo-Celts, the list goes on.
Thankfully, in the past week Australian leaders have finally come to their senses and have hurriedly set about remedying this multicultural dilemma. NSW premier Chris Minns has called on NSW Police to investigate and press charges against those in attendance at Sydney’s recent pro-Palestine rally, and Liberal party leader Peter Dutton has called for the deportation of any attendee without citizenship.

Subscribe now

Well…once giant this is not quite the truth. The bipartisan reaction against pro-Palestine supporters in Australia is unfortunately not a reaction to the failures of multiculturalism itself, instead they appear to come as a result of the specific group being targeted. The reaction against individuals with anti-Israel or pro-Palestine sentiments stands in stark contrast to the pathetic bickering that has historically surrounded calls for similar government policies to be enacted in the interest of regular Australians. Pauline Hanson and Fraser Anning’s calls for immigration restrictionism saw them labelled both labelled ‘racist’ and swiftly removed from the Liberal party much like Moira Deeming following her opposition to far-left lgbtq+ ideology and Bernie Finn after he voiced the Christian position regarding abortion. All these politicians spoke out against practices which every day impoverish, harm and literally end Australian lives, yet instead of receiving the near universal support many political leaders are receiving for anti-Palestine actions, these politicians were completely ostracised. This contrast grows even starker when we compare the support Peter Dutton has received for calling for deportations on individuals who merely attended a pro-Palestine protest to the backlash he received for speaking out against Sudanese gangs in Victoria who actually broke the law and have a track record of violent crime.

This uniquely swift and near-universal response has clearly not been bought down because of the violent threat presented or the disharmony created as a result of protests, the reaction is clearly unique to the target under threat - the state of Israel.

Subscribe now

it appears that this is a result of the strong influence pro-Israel lobby groups such as the ‘Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Committee’ (AIJAC) and ‘Anti Defamation Commission’ (ADC) exert over both major parties and many mainstream media companies. Journalist John Lyons sums up the extent of this influence over public opinion succinctly:

“…there are only three people who can tell the editors of The Australian what they can or can’t use: Rupert Murdoch, Lachlan Murdoch and Colin Rubenstein (executive director of the AIJAC).”

These lobby groups with ties to the Israeli government reportedly use mafia-like pressure tactics to coerce politicians, political parties and media companies alike in order to influence Australian foreign policy.

Subscribe now

The influence of these lobby groups over our political institutions explains the double standard in terms of political advocacy - there is no monetary or career advantage to be gained from advocating for the interests of Anglo-Celtic and European Australians against the various negative effects of diversity, but there is in the case of Israelis and Israel.

This is why no politician and most mainstream media figures will not lift a finger to remedy the root cause of the recent domestic turmoil resulting from the Israel-Palestine conflict, that being multiculturalism. For most, like Albanese, the very concept of multiculturalism is sacrosanct and above reproach, it is this attitude which has pervaded multiple generations of our nation’s political leaders hat has created a nation perpetually poised to break out into protest, brawls and conflict based upon the actions of foreign powers to whom various minority populations hold their true loyalty to. Instead we receive only targeted solutions bought and paid for by special interest lobbies.

Subscribe now

If either of the major parties were as dedicated to pausing and reversing multicultural diversity (by ending the mass immigration which has created it) as they were about conflict in a state twelve thousand kilometres away, our national headlines would have looked very different this week. The same is true of ending any number of the affronts to our morality which are commonplace in schools and libraries or defeating the Voice to Parliament campaign. It seems obvious, but we should expect our politicians to demonstrate a greater dedication to advancing and protecting our own nation rather than foreign states.

To conclude I would like to reiterate the comment regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict I posted to 𝕏 earlier this week: I am neither pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, I am pro-Australia, and it’s about time Australia’s political leadership was too.

Australia, like all modern Western nations, boasts proudly of its freedom. The second line of our national anthem proudly boasts “For we are one and free” and one of Australia’s major parties is even named after and constituted around an alleged commitment to ‘liberalism’ itself, an ideology which holds as its highest principle the rights and freedoms of each individual. One of the rights Australian’s are supposedly guaranteed is the freedom to take part in our nation’s political process via any peaceful means they choose - for example by protesting, commentating or standing for election.

Supposedly.

Our media frequently contrasts Australia’s alleged freedom with the tyranny of societies like China, Russia, various Islamic nations and the totalitarian regimes of Europe’s recent history. Why are these societies tyrannical? Our enlightened media class never misses an opportunity to point to factors such as state control of media and journalism, limited citizen participation in civic life and most of all, the fact that political dissent against the ruling regime is severely punished, that the rulers and regimes in these nations will dispense of political threats without a second thought or concern for due process.

I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but this dualistic picture of the world and history is entirely fabricated. Though Australia may not suffer from the same kind of tyranny as many of the before-mentioned examples, do not make the mistake of believing our’s to be a free land. In the same way North Koreans with no experience of the broader world may believe they are free, many Australians believe they are free simply because they have been told so, when in reality they simply have never tested their restraints.

We know these limits exist thanks to the principled work of political dissidents.
These dissidents, both past and present, left and right, traversed to the far limits of permitted political expression and in doing so served as an excellent barometer for political freedom. Throughout Australia’s history these dissidents have emerged from all corners of the political spectrum, for most of our history dissidents emerged from the economic left-wing. In the post-WW2 era however, we have witnessed even the furthest extremities of left-wing thought amalgamated into the political establishment, leaving right-wing opponents of progressive-liberalism the only meaningful political opposition to speak of. In 2023, across the whole Western world those who espouse a traditional or contrary belief regarding issues of race, gender, religion, history or science face slander and doxing, job loss, censorship, reputational attack and have even found themselves the victim of legal action and even arrest.

In Australia this is not a new phenomenon.

Below I have recorded the names and stories of six political dissidents from Australia’s history who presented meaningful, and purely ideological, opposition to the Australian regime of their time and paid the price for it. As much as I may disagree with the ideology, strategy or intention of any of these individuals, the retaliation they received from a supposedly free, democratic and liberal government is worth studying, especially for modern Australian dissidents.

Subscribe now

William Guthrie Spence and the Labour movement

William Guthrie Spence, founder of the Australian Workers Union, was one of the quintessential figures of Australia’s ‘Labour’ movement, the movement from which both the Australian Labor Party and unionism were born. Many founding Labor Prime Ministers and pioneers either emerged from his union or worked alongside Spence in advocating the cause of unionism with Spence himself winning election as a member to the first ever House of Representatives. Mass marches and strikes were Spence’s methods of choice in advocating for an 8 hour work day, improved working conditions and immigration restriction.

Consequences
Hundreds of working union men were arrested and maltreated by police as their movement combated the interests of both wealthy landowners and politicians alike. The consequences suffered would most likely have been far worse had Spence’s movement not succeeded in its entry to politics. William Guthrie Spence’s book ‘Australia’s Awakening’ lists the names of 100 men arrested during the years 1891-94 in NSW and Queensland alone.

Subscribe now

Fred Paterson and the Australian Communist Party

It may surprise most Australians to learn that not only did Australia have its own communist party, but that said party actually enjoyed some electoral success. The party, inspired by the Russian Revolution and the Soviet Communist government that followed it, held as its mission the propagation of Communism in Australia. The party went about achieving this goal by several methods, including but not limited to infiltration of established unions and the Labor Party as well as involving itself in various cultural battles. During a time when conservative, Christian and Anglo-Celtic values were the norm in Australia, Communists represented our country’s primary ideological dissidents.

Consequences
The communist party operated for 70 years and over that time experienced varying degrees of persecution and scrutiny by government and law enforcement. The most severe crackdowns came in 1940 when the party was officially banned by the Australian government, following this the homes of all known members were raided alongside the party office. As part of this historically large operation, police seized everything from documents to furniture, arrests were made and several high ranking party members received prison sentences for offences as minor as possessing party literature.

This crackdown was not isolated, for much of its history the party and its members remained under the watchful eye of law enforcement and Australian intelligence services.

Party leader Fred Paterson won the electorate of Bowen during Queensland’s 1944 state election only to have his electorate abolished in 1949 when it was divided in two, some historians believe this change was made intentionally to eliminate Paterson’s chance of re-election in 1950.

Subscribe now

Jack Lang and the Labor Party

Jack Lang remains one of the most prominent Labor party premiers in Australian history and caused quite a stir during his time. Lang gathered what has since been described as a ‘cult of personality’ following and consequently made many enemies from every corner of politics; fascists, communists, within his own Labor party and the broader federal government. Lang was a committed man of the people and this led him to take such drastic actions as attempting to end banking in NSW altogether in an attempt to transform the state into a cash-only economy and thereby remove the pernicious influence of powerful bankers.

Consequences
As a result of his revolutionary actions he was forced to leave office under threat of arrest. Though many called on him to confront Australia’s military with the NSW police force the two forces being roughly equal in strength at the time, Lang, a principled pacifist ultimately resigned without bloodshed.

Subscribe now

Percy R. Stephensen and the Australia First movement

Percy Stephenson was a lifelong political radical. Though he started his career of political activism a committed far-left socialist (he was actually a friend of Australian Communist Party leader, Fred Paterson) though is best remembered for his switch to far-right politics. During the 1930s Stephenson grew enamoured with European fascism and in 1941 stitched together an assortment of political radicals to found the Australia First movement. Stephenson also began writing heavily in support of national socialism, monarchism and, bizarrely, the integration of Aboriginal identity into Australian culture.

Consequences
During WW2, Australia First movement members were subjected to intense scrutiny by law enforcement. 20 members of the movement were arrested in 1942 upon the baseless suspicion they would aid the Japanese in the war. Multiple were imprisoned for the extent of the war, sometimes for reasons as dubious as visiting Japan years earlier or advocating an anti-war cause. Historian and Former Governor General Paul Hasluck described the imprisonment of movement members as the “grossest infringement of individual liberty made during the war”.

Subscribe now

Dr Johannes Becker and the ‘Hitler Club’

“The Hitler Club” was not the name Dr Johannes Becker chose for his social club, the credit for that name belongs to a member of Australia’s secret service codenamed ‘A4’. Gary Gumpl in his evenhanded book on the topic gives a far less inflammatory description of the group; “In Australia the group that assembled under the swastika was little more than a fraternity of expatriates bemoaning the humiliations of Versailles and barracking for a team, led by Hitler, that was going to win back the trophy.” Dr Becker was a doctor of medicine who was also awarded a rank (but effectively no power) in the nazi party, despite living all the way on the other side of the world from Germany, in South Australia. In terms of operation the so called ‘hitler club’ was nothing more than a German social club and when interrogated Becker concurred with this description.  Many members of the club were ideological National Socialists and in part represented a minor ideological challenge to the Allied powers.

Consequences
Dr Becker and many of his club members were interned during WW2 even despite Dr Becker’s cooperation with authorities, eleven years after Dr Becker had ceased holding any rank in the Nazi party he found himself deported from his country. For many years before and after this he was also unfairly targeted by various media publications.

Subscribe now

Pauline Hanson and the One Nation party

Pauline Hanson is a name that needs no introduction in Australia, to most of the population her’s is the face of dissident right-wing politics. She began her political career as an unlikely winner in the 1996 election as the member for Oxley, Queensland. Shortly following this she founded the ‘One Nation’ party and in less than two years grew to the second largest vote-winner in the 1998 Queensland state election. Over time this has evolved and in 2023 Mrs Hanson can hardly be described as a dissident, having moderated her politics enormously since her early days standing against multiculturalism and mass immigration to Australia.

Consequences
Throughout her career Pauline Hanson has been expelled from the Liberal party for her controversial remarks regarding Aboriginals, spent 11 weeks in prison for a later overturned charge and recently had her party labelled a ‘hate group’ by the radically left-wing ‘Global Project against Hate and Extremism’ think-tank.

In addition to this, the early success of the One Nation party also served as part of the ‘Anti-Defamation Commission’s motivation to push for censorious racial vilification laws and Hanson’s party was the victim of an unprovoked doxing attack perpetrated by the ‘Australia/Israel Review’ which in 1998 leaked the names of roughly 2000 One Nation members and donors.

Subscribe now

In light of all these examples a clear pattern emerges, meaningful disagreement with the established status-quo is not acceptable in our democracy. I would like to draw the attention of those who believe this persecution of dissidents is a fact of the past to some recent developments within the political arena. Individuals like Moira Deeming, George Christiansen & Bernie Finn, all of whom were expelled by the supposedly centre-right Liberal party for their centre-right stances. In a time when winning an election without the backing of a major party is probably as likely as being struck by lightning twice, the narrow lanes of major party dogma all but throttle any chance of a genuine opposition to the establishment succeeding. Though Australia boasts many minor parties, our preferential voting system redirects all unused votes back into the major parties - meaning in effect your vote is almost always funnelled back into either the Labor or Liberal party. In practice this has the effect of constraining the votes of Christians and conservatives to a Liberal Party that kicks out elected representatives who hold a Christian, conservative stance on matters of gender, government power or abortion.

Yet, even after reading the nine examples I listed above, some will still attempt to rationalise the tyranny of our present ‘democratic’ system claiming that in the 21st century governments, corporations and nonprofits across the Western world work to silence the speech and political freedom of dissidents so as to protect the sensibilities of any potentially offended onlooker. This is ludicrous of course, standards are enforced entirely differently dependant on ideology. Critique or ridicule of Christianity is encouraged, while the same is punished in the case of Islam or Judaism. The ‘Black Lives Matter’ slogan is held as uncontroversial, but an equivalent slogan pertaining to Whites is ‘controversial’ and ‘hateful’. Dissenting ideas and individuals are censored even when presented in a safe and non-confrontational manner, while approved ideas and individuals face little to no consequences even when presenting in a repugnant, offensive or outright violent manner.

Dissident political speech is not discouraged because of the offence it causes, dissident political speech is blacklisted because of the political threat it poses to the established regime - Australia is no exception. Every regime has its political enemies, Democracy is the only regime that deceitfully claims otherwise.

“But how does it effect you personally?”

In my experience it is inevitable this question will arise during any (generally controversial) discussion regarding politics, religion or current events - for much of the general public apathetic indifference has come to replace any loyalty they once would have held to their nation, faith or community.

This attitude is completely predictable coming from an irreligious or secular person. After all - they disbelieve in any concept higher than themselves and as such have no rational reason to direct attention to, or sacrifice for, a cause that does not benefit them within their lifetime. Without theism there can be no objective morality or order, in which case the only rational reason to sacrifice for anything would be to trade future personal discomfort for a lesser or equal discomfort in the present. Without God, maximising personal comfort or fulfilment is the highest goal an individual can rationally work toward.

Subscribe now

On the other hand, what I am always disappointed by is the same indifference from Christians. Unfortunately modern Christians, myself included, are incredibly lukewarm in comparison to the disciples who travelled to the ends of the earth and suffered martyrdom to execute Christ’s will. While every Christian will acknowledge that loving their neighbour and doing charitable works are Christian imperatives, it is all too commonplace for these same Christians to behave as though this imperative ends where difficulty begins. The specific difficulty I have in mind is the task of saving Australia from her ongoing spiritual and cultural decline.

For some reason mass charity of this kind is disregarded by many Christians, instead commonly repeated are sentiments to the effect of ‘change the world one person at a time’ or ‘focus on yourself’. I don’t doubt the genuineness of those who express this sentiment, though it can often serve as a rationalisation for cowardice in the face of the enormous task that stands before us. If changing the life of one person for the better is good and necessary, helping two people is twice as good and ten people ten times so - follow this sentiment to its logical conclusion and you will find it demands every Christian help the maximum amount of people they possibly can. When charity is approached in this way, thinking in terms of maximums, I believe it is impossible for any honest Christian to disagree with me: Nothing less than a complete societal overhaul is acceptable.

Subscribe now

Australian decline becomes more apparent by the day: abortion, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, feminism, contraception, lgbtq indoctrination, usury, drug abuse, heresy and secularism have all taken firm root. Every day Christians are torn from the church by the siren-song of modern Australia’s many evils, a phenomenon that has seen Australia become a minority-Christian country in our time. The average secular Australian would most likely be oblivious to the corruption that day by day engulfs this country if not for the unignorable consequences: skyrocketing suicide, nihilism and a multitude of mental health crises.
Would you ever willingly subject yourself to these consequences? Would you subject a loved one to these consequences? A neighbour? Of course not! Christ’s instructions at the last supper could not have been more clear, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this will all men know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” [John 13:34-35]. I ask only that you extend this love to your countrymen and the nation they live in.

Subscribe now

Every Australian is your neighbour, in fact according to Jesus Christ every man, woman and child is your neighbour [Luke 10:25-37]. This being the case, it is our Christian responsibility to save our nation by arresting her cultural and moral erosion. This can only be achieved by what I will term ‘National Christian Action’: active Christian concern for the health of the nation and the salvation of its people - a true expression of nationalist Christianity. This ‘national’ action finds strong basis in our scriptures - every Christian know’s Christ’s command to his disciples “Go out and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the father and the son and the Holy Spirit”. Make no mistake, Christ’s command here is not optional: “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels’ for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me” [Matthew 25:41-43].
Every English-speaking person living in Australia in 2023 knows who Jesus Christ is, and yet a majority of the population is non-Christian, the evils of this age are the reason. Trying to convert people living in modern Australia is like planting seeds in a concrete sidewalk and expecting a fruit-bearing tree to grow from it, the culture, laws and government will swallow and choke out the truth long before it can take root. You could say modern Australian society is to Christianity as stony ground is to a seed, “Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth. But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away.” [Matthew 13: 5-6]

Subscribe now

It is clear that to fulfil his duties to God in modern Australia, a Christian man must take part in tearing up the cold, dead culture that has set around the seeds. By this I mean: loving ones neighbour necessarily includes concern for his soul, which every day suffers attack from the subversive enemies of Christ. In practical terms this means much like Emperor Saint Constantine we must replace our present anti-Christian elites in every consequential position of power they hold, in their place installing Christians who will reform our culture at a national level.

In his letter to the Corinthians St Paul explains that the MOST IMPORTANT virtue a Christian must acquire is love. “And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” [1 Corinthians 13:2]

and shortly after:
“And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” [1 Corinthians 13:13 St Paul ]

I believe it is in these words that Australian right-wing Christians can find our ‘mandate from heaven’ to act boldly to save our nation. After all, every element of St Paul’s sentence contains a call to action:

Faith: Our belief in Christ necessarily compels us to action, St James famously explained that ‘faith without works is dead’ [James 2:18]. Works include everything from prayer and fasting to charity, visiting those in prison, helping the sick, the poor and our fellow countrymen.

Hope: St Augustine wrote that “Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are, and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are.” If you are reading this you are most likely already well aquatinted with the first daughter, I hope this article has introduced you to the second.

Love: In the words of Jesus Christ: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.” [John 15:12-13], if I could boil down this article down to two sentences, these would be it.

So, how does it effect me personally? Because saving Australia is the right thing to do in our time, I would not be fulfilling my duties as a Christian if I didn’t. At the end of history when every material aspect about our nation - from the wealth to the land beneath our feet crumbles into nothingness, all that will remain are the eternal souls of every man and woman that was born, lived and died here. Can we truly say we did our duty as soldiers of Christ if we didn’t do everything we can to save them?

The “recognise a better way” campaign opposing the voice to parliament officially launched on Tuesday (31/1/23), the campaign is being run by the 6 member ‘No Case Committee’ that notably includes NT Senator Jacinta Price and Liberal Candidate Warren Mundine, both ethnically Aboriginal.

The better way referenced in the campaign name refers to support for ‘a preamble in the constitution acknowledging European occupation’. The committees opposition to the voice to parliament proposition is primarily on the grounds that it is “divisive and will do nothing to improve the lives of First Nations people” and “will negatively impact democracy”

While opposing the voice, the ‘No Case Committee’ will be supporting recognition of indigenous Australians in the constitution - while Mr Mundine has suggested constitutional recognition of the “migrants and refugees” who have “contributed to this country”

Subscribe now

Sources: ABC, Sky News, 9News, 4bc

PM Albanese ‘Revives’ cultural funding

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese launched the $286 Million ‘Revive’ cultural plan in Melbourne on Monday (30/1/23). The 4 year plan is designed to correct the ‘calculated neglect’ of the previous decade.

Practically speaking this will include creating “quotas for Australian content on streaming services” and establishing “the role of an Australian poet laureate in order to give greater prominence to the literary sector.”

“$286 million investment over four years, of which $241 million is new funding. A further $45 million has been redirected from a COVID insurance scheme that is no longer needed”.

A streaming quota will be implemented “that requires such services to reinvest 20% of their combined estimated $2.4 billion annual revenue into local content would result in the investment of $480 million a year into new Australia content (approximately 400 hours of new content a year).”

$44 Million in funding will also be returned to the Australia Council (to be newly reformed as ‘Creative Australia.’) Creative Australia will then become the home of 4 industry bodies: “Music Australia, Writers Australia, the Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces” as well as a yet unspecified “First Nations-led body”(The Entertainment Australia body will be addressing workplace bullying, sexual harassment and WHS)
Interestingly, Revive will also be “cracking down on fake Indigenous art” among other commitments to Indigenous arts initiatives.

Subscribe now

Sources: Artshub, arts.gov.au, ABC

Teal MP Monique Ryan sued over sacking for ‘unreasonable hours’

“High-profile teal independent Monique Ryan is facing court action by her chief-of-staff, who claims the MP tried to sack her after just six months when she refused to work additional “unreasonable” hours.” - Sky News

“But Ms Rugg alleges the hours being asked of her were not reasonable, and the decision to terminate her effective January 31 for refusing to work those hours was therefore not legal.” - Australian Financial Review

Subscribe now

Sources: Australian Financial Review, Sky News, news.com.au,

Number of Aboriginal Tasmanians in prison more than doubles in a decade

“By 2021-22, there were 154 Aboriginal prisoners and 479 were non-Indigenous. 

That means last financial year, about 24 per cent of Tasmanian prisoners were Aboriginal, compared with 15 per cent 10 years earlier. 

About 5.4 per cent of Tasmanian residents identified as Aboriginal in 2021.” - ABC

Subscribe now

Sources: ABC

New Western Australia opposition leader and Liberal Party leader chosen

“Newly elected WA Liberal leader Libby Mettam has launched an all-out war against influential faction “The Clan”, announcing her intention to strip main powerbroker Nick Goiran of his shadow ministerial portfolios.“ - WAToday

“Ms Mettam took over the Liberal leadership from David Honey in an uncontested spill today.” - ABC

“‘I believe this is a line in the sand, this is a reset for the Liberal Party, this is the reset that the Liberal Party desperately needs,’ Mettam said.” - WAToday

Subscribe now

Sources: 9News, ABC, WAToday

Share

On Sunday Afternoon, two Indian ethnic groups with longstanding rivalries began brawling outside of Federation Square - the two opposing groups were protesting regarding a referendum “on the creation of an independent Sikh state”. The altercation began at 4:30pm, though an earlier scuffle between the same groups had broken out earlier around 12.30pm.

The Sikh group was recorded initiating the violence; charging at the pro-Hindu group with cries of “Death to India”. The primary weapons involved were flagpoles though witnesses claim there was at least one Sikh man wielding a sword. One man who tripped over tram lines was immediately attacked with Sikh flags. Police deployed pepper spray to disperse the fighting men.

According to police, two men were arrested (ages 34 and 39) and issued with penalty notices “for riotous behaviour”.
Two men received what are believed to be minor injuries, one with a head laceration, another with a hand injury. Both were treated in an ambulance at the scene.

Tensions between the two communities have been noted to be growing.

The Age noted that both Sikhs and Hindu are a growing population in Australia.

Subscribe now

Sources: The Age, The Daily Mail, News.com.au

Voice to Parliament Campaign Date Set

The Indigenous Voice to parliament campaign set to launch on February 20th. So far, campaign tactics we are aware of include “door-knocks, letter-box drops, street stalls and online advertisements.” Primarily the campaigns aims are to “answer the ‘detail’ question” and convince Australians “that the Voice is the consensus view of Indigenous Australians.”

According to The SMH: “The referendum will be held as early as August, although a date in September or October is firming as a more likely option, according to government sources.”

Subscribe now

Sources: The Sydney Morning Herald

NSW Labor pledges $400m towards education

NSW Labor has promised to “establish a $400 million education fund to better meet the Gonski school funding model if elected in March.”

NSW Labor party “says its proposed Future Education Fund will ensure the state puts in 75 per cent of the School Resource Standard by 2025, which is two years earlier than what the Coalition has planned.”

“The $400m program would be used to hire more teachers, school counsellors and establish the tutoring program, which would run in primary and high schools, but have an initial focus on the 2023 Year 10 cohort”

Labor leader Chris Minns also appears to be putting emphasis on reducing device usage in the classroom.

Subscribe now

Sources: The ABC, The Guardian

Greens Party Leader criticises PM Albanese for allowing new coal and gas mines

“Adam Bandt has accused Labor of “gaslighting” and “greenwashing” for allowing new coal and gas mines to offset emissions in its upgraded safeguards mechanism.”

“Bandt complains the policy allows new coal and gas mines because all “big corporations have to do is buy a few tree-planting permits”.

Subscribe now

Sources: The Guardian

NSW Coalition pledges feasibility study for specialist domestic violence courts

The New South Wales Coalition will consider establishing standalone domestic violence courts, which Labor says are almost a decade overdue.

As both major parties ratchet up support for victims ahead of the March poll, the Perrottet government on Sunday announced it would create a specialist “family violence list” in three local courts to manage cases faster.

Subscribe now

Sources: The Sydney Morning Herald

Alice Spring is experiencing a large crime wave largely driven by Indigenous Australians, a result of the lapsed alcohol ban. [Since last year property offences increased by 59.64%, assaults increased by 43.48% and domestic violence assaults rose by 53.75%] In response, the Albanese government has reimposed the alcohol ban, the original ban was successful in reducing crime by up to 50% but has been criticised as ‘racist’. Mounting worry the crime wave’s bad publicity may damage the voice to parliament campaign. Turmoil is leading to residents moving out of the town, roughly 200 properties up for sale.

Subscribe now

Sources: ABC, The Saturday Paper, The Age

Missing nuclear capsule

Tiny radioactive capsule lost inbetween mine in WA’s Pilbara region and Perth

• Urgent hazmat health warning issued
  - Material cannot be weaponised

  - Amount of radiation exposure is comparable to receiving 10 X-rays in the space of an hour.

  Chief Health Officer Dr Andrew Robertson: “Exposure to this substance could cause radiation burns or severe illness – if people see the capsule or something that looks similar, stay away from it and keep others away from it too,”

• lost sometime between January 10 and January 16, DFES put out an alert on Friday afternoon

  WA chief health officer, Andy Robertson: “the capsule was understood to have fallen from a truck during the 1,400km journey, after vibrations worked loose a bolt, and the capsule fell through the bolt hole.”

• Capsule is smaller than a 10c coin, measuring 6mm by 8mm

• Being tracked down by multiple agencies:
  - Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES)
  - Department of Health
  - WA Police
  - other subject matter experts

• If found: Do not touch or pick it up. Report immediately by calling 13 DFES (13 33 37)

Subscribe now

Sources: 9News, WAtoday, The Guardian

Perth Lord Mayor comments on Australia Day brawl

Several people arrested during 150 person alcohol-driven brawl on Australia Day.

• The fight started between transit officers and a small crowd of people at Perth train station just after 10pm
  - The crowd quickly grew to about 150 to its peak
  - Police arrived at the scene at 10:50pm
  - Crowd allegedly throwing glass bottles and rocks at officers
  - Police arrived and supported transit officers as the crowd grew

• Three hours later, at 1:30am, police were called to a second brawl in East Perth.
  - protestors threw bricks, broken pavers at police officers.
  - One individual armed with a tomahawk was arrested quickly.
  - Two officers injured and taken to hospital, a minor face injury and dislocated shoulder reported.

• Multiple arrests were made and charges expected

• Perth Mayor: “The people who were in the city later carrying on like boofheads - had no connection no relation to the Langley Park event.” (Langley Park event was a family fireworks show)

Subscribe now

Sources: 9News, WAtoday, The West Australian, PerthNow

Australia-China relations appear to be on the mend

“After some three years of tense relations over a range of issues including trade freezes, signs have emerged recently that ties between the two countries are warming”… “China put unofficial bans on Australian products from coal to wine in 2020, after Australia called for an inquiry into the origins of COVID-19 and put a 5G network ban on China's telecom giant Huawei.”…“In January, China reportedly granted permission for select companies to resume importing Australian coal.”

Subscribe now

Sources: ABC

Liberal Senator suing for defamation

“Federal Liberal senator Linda Reynolds is suing David Sharaz, Brittany Higgins' fiancé, for defamation over two tweets posted last year.”… “In documents filed by Reynolds' lawyers in the Western Australian Supreme Court, it is claimed Sharaz made two tweets in 2022 – one on January 27, the other on December 4 – that are "falsely defamatory".”

Subscribe now

Sources: 9News

Western Australia Liberals leadership contest

Libby Mettam “wrote to Liberal Leader David Honey shortly after 6.00pm on Friday to inform him she intends to challenge him for the role.” She appears to be running on a standard Liberal party platform: “I believe the change is essential if we are to regroup and re-emerge as the party in Western Australian politics that advocates for aspirational Western Australians, families and small businesses, lower taxes, and safety in our community.”

This announcement follow the recent resignation of WA’s National Party leader.

Subscribe now

Sources: WAtoday, ABC,

NSW Labor leader Chris Minns suggests school phone ban.

“Mobile phones could be banned across all public high schools across NSW by the end of the 2023 school year, in an election promise made by NSW Labor. Opposition Leader Chris Minns said he anticipated the rule to be “up and running in the year 2023,” while also committing $2.5 million in research into the impact of screen-addiction in young people.”

This announcement comes in response to declining education metrics

Subscribe now

Sources: perthnow

Liberal candidate vying for Stokes’ seat defends voting record on pokies

“Rory Amon, The Liberal candidate vying to replace senior minister Rob Stokes in Pittwater at the state election has defended voting against a gambling harm minimisation policy as a councillor, insisting he supported pokies reform and the push for cashless gaming.”
Amon is set to face a teal independent in an upcoming March 25 poll

Subscribe now

Sources: The Sydney Morning Herald

As we near the end of 2022 a glaring problem has become apparent to me; the Australian right wing’s lack of articulated organising principals. While Baby boomer generation conservatives fixate on the rise of China and the ever growing ‘threat’ of environmental politics, the left has captured most Millennials and generation Z. This leaves the few remaining conservatives from said younger generations looking to American politics for inspiration. This is not without cause, tech censorship is only one of the many near-insurmountable barriers to the proliferation of organic Australian right wing thought.
In this article however I would like to posit that another major reason for the lack of right wing youth is due in large part to the lack of a well articulated, cohesive vision being presented by the Australian right.

What is the mission we are asking young men to sacrifice for? What is the ultimate goal we are striving to accomplish? Why?

Subscribe now

Why do I invest time and energy into Australian politics in the first place?
Very simply because I, like many others, believe that the Australian Nation is on a negative trajectory. Current trends, given enough time, will lead Australia to extinction. You may read that claim and shake your head, thinking I am exaggerating the situation or writing hyperbolically for effect, but I assure you that I am unfortunately writing extremely literally.
In the most serious terms possible, Australia is currently on a trajectory that will conclude in her total erasure.

Modern Australia is fundamentally flawed. Political corruption, cronyism, nepotism and misguided idealism combined with increasing monetary and foreign influence over our political system has led to the construction of a government that does not place Australia and her citizens first.

Subscribe now

For one, the economic system Australians enter after leaving school may have made the average convict in 1788 thankful for their situation. At least many convicts had a chance to own their own property before 30 years of age, the same can not be said about the same age bracket in Australia today.

But that is not the end of the bad news, we also have the population problems. If current fertility, birth and immigration rates continue unchanged, Australian’s descended from this nations Anglo-Celtic founding stock will become a minority within the next 50 years and nearly extinct by 2100 AD.

Subscribe now

While all this is happening, subversive actors are working to in a very literal way erase our national symbols, cultural artefacts and ties to our history. The most obvious examples of this ongoing attempt being the attempts to remove and alter Australia’s monarchy and flag.

Even if these self destructive cultural forces don’t in themselves alter Australia into an unrecognisable shell of its former self, the impact of these cultural, economic and demographic changes have led to a an ever shrinking portion of Australian citizens who would actually be willing to defend the nation if a military conflict arose. I believe Australia will one day have to go to war again, Australia will be left defenceless if not for its allies.

Subscribe now

If any combination of these trends continue, the ‘Australia’ of the future will either be totally disconnected in every way from her founder’s legacy or militarily beholden/conquered by another nation.

Basically: something needs to change, and it needs to change soon.
Providing answers to the questions of our nations survival will give the Australian Right purpose and direction. But what would the survival and restoration of Australia look like? With Remembrance Day still fresh in our memory, I believe deference should be given to those among our ancestors who had a hand in forging Australia, especially those who sacrificed and died for the infant Nation. We can be assured that their vision for Australia was one they truly wished to live in, their actions are a testament to the fact.

Subscribe now

Earlier this year I outlined some goals which, If achieved, would bring us a lot closer to the vision of our Nation’s founders. You can read the article here.

But having a few goals is not enough. I call on everyone who considers themselves right wing to put forward their own ideas and debate. We must begin the process of creating a cohesive vision, because currently, we are sorely lacking one.

Mariam is a third generation Lebanese migrant who grew up in the suburbs of Bankstown and Punchbowl, two Sydney suburbs which boast large Islamic populations, and in 2013, at age 18 married Kaled Zahab. This is all according to the sympathetic biography provided by the Sydney Morning Herald, as you may have guessed from the title of this article, her story takes a rather dramatic turn for the worse.

Though previously irreligious, Mariam became increasingly interested in her family’s Islamic religious practices after her wedding. Following her rediscovery of faith, Mariam along with her daughter, husband Kaled and father went on holiday through Malaysia and Dubai, but while Mariam’s father returned home Mariam’s new family continued on to Turkey and eventually, Syria. It is at this point The Sydney Morning Herald’s readers are alerted to the fact that Kaled, Mariam’s husband, was a member of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria - better known as ISIS.

Subscribe now

Fast forward to 2022, the Australian government under PM Anthony Albanese’s leadership has decided Australia has a responsibility to bring Mariam, along with 15 other Australian-citizens-turned-ISIS-brides and their 42 children back to Australia.

Why is this necessary? Proponents of bringing these 60 individuals back to Australia have presented two main reasons, 

1. These women are all Australian citizens

2. Their children are growing up in poor conditions

However, of the male ISIS members these women initially married have either been killed or captured, is it really wise to bring individuals into the country who’s defence force is responsible for killing their husbands and fathers? It does not take an expert to recognise being orphaned and widowed by the Australian defence force might give these 60 individuals a sour opinion of Australia, to say the least.

Subscribe now

This is not the only concern raised by opponents of this intake, 9News presenter Karl Stefanovic for example raised a valid concern, what about the national security risk posed by these brides to Australians in Australia?
Of course concerns to not end there, in fact there are quite a few more:

1. Obviously these brides held some conviction to the cause ISIS fought for, considering they were willing to move to Syria for it - these convictions are in literal conflict with Australia

2. This repatriation is slated to cost Australians millions

3. To even reintroduce these individuals into Australian life they will need to undergo a de-radicalisation program, which has a rather patchy success-rate

Subscribe now

And lets not forget the acts the 16 women were to some degree complicit in, as ‘The Spectator’ aptly points out:

“ISIS has committed terror attacks, genocide, torture, slavery, mass rapes, forced marriages, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, robbery, extortion, smuggling, kidnapping, the use of child soldiers, destruction of ancient monuments, forced conversions, beheadings, crucifixions, beatings, mutilation, dismemberment, stoning, and burning people alive.” 

Subscribe now

One prominent proponent of repatriation, former ADF intelligence analyst Shane Healey, is quoted heavily by the Daily Mail: when questioned by ‘The Project’ host Waleed Aly on the questionable success of de-radicalisation programs, Mr Healey responded:

“I hate the term 'deradicalised' because I believe it is an extremist spectrum, It's not about being radical or their religion, it is their acceptance or use of violence.” 

Subscribe now

Mind you, this Shane Healey responding “Yes, 100%” to the question of whether Australia is obliged to bring these individuals back 'even if there is a slight risk' is the same Shane Healey who only last month took a swipe at Ben Roberts-Smith:

It's baffling to see individuals such as Mr Healey and media companies such as ‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ so sympathetic to these Brides, explicit supporters of Australia’s expressed enemies, when the same treatment has repeatedly been denied to others:

I'm sure white South Africans wish the same charity afforded to ISIS sympathisers was extended to them by the Sydney Morning Herald, who in 2018 belittled Peter Dutton’s calls to grant special refugee status to said South Africans.

I wonder where these ISIS-bride defenders were when Novak Djokovich was denied access to Australia due to the miniscule risk he presented of spreading covid - to a country already infected with covid. 

Subscribe now

I wonder if any of those who doubt that real word ramifications could result from ISIS radicalisation would have stood up for conservative influencer Milo Yiannopoulos who was denied entry to Australia for far less than aiding an enemy combatant.

Why should Australians have to bear any risk whatsoever to reintegrate these individuals? Why must we bear the cost of millions of dollars to do so?

Why does the Australian government place ISIS brides first and Australians second?